Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Phillips v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2018“In order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court must find: (1) that the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation, and (2) that the amount of liquidated damages called for is a reasonable forecast of just compensation.” See Phillips v. Phillips, 820 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tex. 1991). 2018“In order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court must find: (1) that the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation, and (2) that the amount of liquidated damages called for is a reasonable forecast of just compensation.” See Phillips v. Phillips, 820 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tex. 1991). | 5 | 9 |
Stewart v. Baseygreen2 sentences1976In Stewart v. Basey, 150 Tex. 666 , 245 S.W.2d 484 (1952), the Supreme Court held that in order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court must find: (1) that the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation, and (2) that the amount of liquidated damages called for is a reasonable forecast of just compensation. 1976In Stewart v. Basey, 150 Tex. 666 , 245 S.W.2d 484 (1952), the Supreme Court held that in order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court must find: (1) that the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation, and (2) that the amount of liquidated damages called for is a reasonable forecast of just compensation. | 2 | 4 |
Magill v. Watsongreen2 sentences2018See id. 2018See id. at 788 (noting that a defendant may be required to prove what the actual damages were to show that a liquidated damages provision is unreasonable because the actual damages incurred were much less than the stipulated amount); Magill v. Watson, 409 S.W.3d 673, 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (observing that “[i]f the amount stipulated in the liquidated damages clause is shown to be disproportionate to actual damages, we should declare that the clause is a penalty and limit recovery to actual damages”). | 2 | 2 |
Muller v. Lightgreen2 sentences2015Farrar v. Beeman, 63 Tex. 175, 181 (1885); see Lefevere v. Sears, 629 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1981, no writ); Muller v. Light, 538 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Schepps © 2015 Thomson Reuters. 2015Farrar v. Beeman, 63 Tex. 175, 181 (1885); see Lefevere v. Sears, 629 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1981, no writ); Muller v. Light, 538 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Schepps © 2015 Thomson Reuters. | 2 | 2 |
Farrar v. Beemangreen2 sentences2015Farrar v. Beeman, 63 Tex. 175, 181 (1885); see Lefevere v. Sears, 629 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1981, no writ); Muller v. Light, 538 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Schepps © 2015 Thomson Reuters. 2015Farrar v. Beeman, 63 Tex. 175, 181 (1885); see Lefevere v. Sears, 629 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1981, no writ); Muller v. Light, 538 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Schepps © 2015 Thomson Reuters. | 2 | 2 |
Lefevere v. Searsgreen2 sentences2015Farrar v. Beeman, 63 Tex. 175, 181 (1885); see Lefevere v. Sears, 629 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1981, no writ); Muller v. Light, 538 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Schepps © 2015 Thomson Reuters. 2015Farrar v. Beeman, 63 Tex. 175, 181 (1885); see Lefevere v. Sears, 629 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1981, no writ); Muller v. Light, 538 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Schepps © 2015 Thomson Reuters. | 2 | 2 |
GPA Holding, Inc. v. Baylor Health Care Systemgreen1 sentence2015“Whether a contractual provision is an unenforceable penalty and not a liquidated damage clause is an affirmative defense.” GPA Holding, Inc. v. Baylor Health Care Sys., 344 S.W.3d 467, 471 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (citing Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Burt v. Lochausengreen2 sentences2015See Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court 249 S.W.2d 194, 199 (Tex. 1952). 2015See Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289 , order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court 249 S.W.2d 194, 199 (Tex. 1952). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. v. Campesi
green
2 sentences2015More recently, in Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. v. Campesi, 592 S.W.2d 340 , 342 n. 2 (Tex.1979), we restated the two-part Stewart test for determining whether to enforce a contractual damages provision as follows: “In order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court must find: (1) that the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation, and (2) that the amount of liquidated damages called for is a reasonable forecast of just compensation.” Cf. TEX.BUS. & COM.CODE § 2.718(a). 3 [2] Whether a contractual provision is an enforceable liquidated damages provision o 2015More recently, in Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. v. Campesi, 592 S.W.2d 340 , 342 n. 2 (Tex.1979), we restated the two-part Stewart test for determining whether to enforce a contractual damages provision as follows: “In order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the court must find: (1) that the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation, and (2) that the amount of liquidated damages called for is a reasonable forecast of just compensation.” Cf. TEX.BUS. & COM.CODE § 2.718(a). 3 [2] Whether a contractual provision is an enforceable liquidated damages provision o | 4 | 1982–2015 |
Bethel v. Butler Drilling Co.
green
2 sentences2015The court observed that “[u]nder the liquidated damage clause as written, appellant would be entitled to the full amount of monthly payments for the full term of the contract irrespective of the nature of the breach or appellant's actual loss or damage.” Id. 2009The court observed that “[ujnder the liquidated damage clause as written, appellant would be entitled to the full amount of monthly payments for the full term of the contract irrespective of the nature of the breach or appellant’s actual loss or damage.” Id. | 3 | 1990–2015 |
Johnson Engineers, Inc. v. Tri-Water Supply Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Appellant also cites Johnson Engineers, Inc. v. Tri-Water Supply Corporation, 582 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1979, no writ) and R.M. 1982Appellant also cites Johnson Engineers, Inc. v. Tri-Water Supply Corporation, 582 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1979, no writ) and R.M. | 2 | 1982–2015 |
McGhee v. Wynnewood State Bank
green
1 sentence2015Since we have held this Wynnewood State Bank, 297 S.W.2d 876 , 884 provision to be a penalty, it will not support the damages (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Young v. J. F. Zimmerman & Sons, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Thus, the question of whether the 528, 538 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1976, no writ); Young v. J. provision is a penalty or a liquidated damage clause is F. Zimmerman & Sons, Inc., 434 S.W.2d 926 , 927 determined by the reasonableness of the provision with (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1968, writ dism'd); McGhee v. respect to just compensation. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Murphy v. Cintas Corp.
green
1 sentence2015Murphy did not offer any Page 3 923 S.W.2d 663 , *; 1996 Tex. App. LEXIS 750 , ** In order to enforce a liquidated damage clause, the Accordingly, we hold that the liquidated [*667] dam- court must find: age clause is enforceable. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Isler v. Shuck
green
2 sentences1989Id. 589 P.2d at 1182 . 1989Id. 589 P.2d at 1182 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Conkling v. Krakauer
neutral
2 sentences1931“A broker is entitled to compensation when he procures a purchaser with whom his principal is satisfied, and who actually contracts for the property at a price satisfactory to the owner.” Conkling v. Krakauer, 70 Tex. 735 , 11 S. W. 117, 118 . 1931“A broker is entitled to compensation when he procures a purchaser with whom his principal is satisfied, and who actually contracts for the property at a price satisfactory to the owner.” Conkling v. Krakauer, 70 Tex. 735 , 11 S. W. 117, 118 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.