19 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
AMX Enterprises, Inc. v. Bank One, N.A.green2 sentences2015The common-law arguments in Ortiz's motion cannot support summary-judgment based on the Uniform Commercial Code because the U.C.C. "preempts principles of common law and equity that are inconsistent with either its provisions or its purposes and policies."' AMX Enters., Inc. v. Bank One, NA., 196 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (quoting TEX. 2015The common-law arguments in Ortiz's motion cannot support 5Ulllillary- judgment based on the Uniform Commercial Code because the U.C.C. "preempts principles of common law and equity that are inconsistent with eitherits provisions or its purposes and policies."' AMX Enters., Inc. v. Bank One, N.A., 196 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (quoting TEX. | 4 | 4 |
Flores v. Habermangreen2 sentences2013See id. 2013See id. | 3 | 3 |
City of Keller v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2013See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 822 . 2007See Keller , 168 S.W.3d at 816 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re the John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundationgreen2 sentences2011Patrick A. Pirtle Justice ----------------------- [1]For convenience, Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited throughout the remainder of this opinion as "Chapter 59," and provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited as "article _______" or "art. _______." See art. 59.01-.14 (West 2006 and West Supp. 2010). [2]"When a court lacks jurisdiction, its only legitimate choice is to dismiss." In re John G., 315 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. 2010) (quoting State v. Morales, 869 S.W.2d 941, 949 (Tex. 1994)). [3]The standing requirement, implicit in the open courts p 2011Patrick A. Pirtle Justice [1] For convenience, Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited throughout the remainder of this opinion as "Chapter 59," and provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited as "article _______" or "art. _______." See art. 59.01-.14 (West 2006 and West Supp. 2010). [2] "When a court lacks jurisdiction, its only legitimate choice is to dismiss." In re John G ., 315 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. 2010) (quoting State v. Morales , 869 S.W.2d 941, 949 (Tex. 1994)). [3] The standing requirement, implicit in the open courts provision of the Tex | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2011Patrick A. Pirtle Justice ----------------------- [1]For convenience, Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited throughout the remainder of this opinion as "Chapter 59," and provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited as "article _______" or "art. _______." See art. 59.01-.14 (West 2006 and West Supp. 2010). [2]"When a court lacks jurisdiction, its only legitimate choice is to dismiss." In re John G., 315 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. 2010) (quoting State v. Morales, 869 S.W.2d 941, 949 (Tex. 1994)). [3]The standing requirement, implicit in the open courts p 2011Patrick A. Pirtle Justice [1] For convenience, Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited throughout the remainder of this opinion as "Chapter 59," and provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be cited as "article _______" or "art. _______." See art. 59.01-.14 (West 2006 and West Supp. 2010). [2] "When a court lacks jurisdiction, its only legitimate choice is to dismiss." In re John G ., 315 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. 2010) (quoting State v. Morales , 869 S.W.2d 941, 949 (Tex. 1994)). [3] The standing requirement, implicit in the open courts provision of the Tex | 2 | 2 |
National City Bank of Indiana v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2023We remanded the case with instructions to the trial court to “retry Ortiz’s claim against National City for breach of contract and National City’s claims against Ortiz for breach of contract and judicial foreclosure, and, with the exception of Ortiz’s limitations defense discussed [in Ortiz I], permitting the parties to assert defenses to these claims.” Id. at 890 . 2013The second case, National City Bank of Indiana v. Ortiz, 401 S.W.3d 867 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.], no pet. h.), involved cross-appeals and a mandamus petition arising out of a foreclosure of a residential property. 10 In Ortiz , the Fourteenth Court of Appeals concluded that, in light of its determination of the issues on appeal and “the probable validity of the real property claim,” the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying Ortiz’s motion to expunge the no tice of lis pendens, and it denied his petition for writ of mandamus. | 1 | 2 |
Olivas v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137, 145 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Shuffield v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Standard of Review “The admissibility of a photograph is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Shuffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
in Re National Lloyds Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2018Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Tilton v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2006See Tilton, 925 S.W.2d at 681 ; Hunt, 68 S.W.3d at 133 . 2006See Tilton, 925 S.W.2d at 681 ; Hunt, 68 S.W.3d at 133 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McConnell v. Southside Independent School District
green
2 sentences2015McConnell, substance of the ruling demonstrates that the trial court granted the portion of Ortiz's motion in which he asked the trial court to disregard the jury finding interpreting the Letter Agreements, and denied the portion of the Bank Parties' motion in which they stated, "In accordance with the jury's answer to Question 6 in the negative, the court should enter a judgment allowing National City to foreclose under the Deed of Trust." 24 858 S.W.2d at 341 . 2012McConnell, substance of the ruling demonstrates that the trial court granted the portion of Ortiz’s motion in which he asked the trial court to disregard the jury finding interpreting the Letter Agreements, and denied the portion of the Bank Parties’ motion in which they stated, “In accordance with the jury’s answer to Question 6 in the negative, the court should enter a judgment allowing National City to foreclose under the Deed of Trust.” 24 858 S.W.2d at 341 . | 2 | 2012–2015 |
Unkart, Rodney Gale
green
1 sentence2025EVID. 103(e) (“In criminal cases, a court may take notice of a fundamental error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.”); Unkart, 400 S.W.3d at 99 . -5- 04-24-00333-CR Regardless of whether Ortiz’s issue is one that he could not forfeit by inaction, 2 Ortiz’s issue fails on the merits. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matthews v. Scott
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen
green
1 sentence2013According to the majority, after granting the Partial Summary Judgment based upon the conclusion that the Letters were unambiguous, the trial court (1) realized it had erred in reaching this conclusion, (2) set aside the Partial Summary 42 See Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51 , 55 n.9 (Tex. 2008) (noting that the determination of an agreement’s validity is a legal question); J.M. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Burton v. National Bank of Commerce of Dallas
green
1 sentence2013In this 37 The majority relies upon Burton v. National Bank of Commerce of Dallas, 679 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984, no writ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hunt v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences2006See Tilton, 925 S.W.2d at 681 ; Hunt, 68 S.W.3d at 133 . 2006See Tilton, 925 S.W.2d at 681 ; Hunt, 68 S.W.3d at 133 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bray v. Curtis
green
1 sentence1980Clothiers, 579 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1979, no writ), and Bray v. Curtis, 544 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hemphill v. S & Q CLOTHIERS
green
1 sentence1980Clothiers, 579 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1979, no writ), and Bray v. Curtis, 544 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.