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 1 courts 2001–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co.green2 sentences2016A key requirement of this section is that “the party seeking attorney’s fees must first prevail on a valid contract claim.” Doctors Hosp. 1997, L.P. v. Sambuca Houston, L.P., 154 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex.2004) (per curiam)). 2015The most basic requirement of this section is that “the party seeking attorney fees must first prevail on a valid contract claim.” Doctors Hosp. 1997, L.P. v. Sambuca Houston, L.P., 154 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex. 2004)). | 5 | 5 |
Doctors Hospital 1997, L.P. v. Sambuca Houston, L.P.green2 sentences2019CODE ANN. § 38.001 (West 2015); Doctors Hosp. 1997, L.P. v. Sambuca Houston, L.P., 154 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. abated) (“Section 38.001’s most basic requirement is that the party seeking attorney’s fees must first prevail on a valid contract claim.”). 5 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JULY 10, 2019 NO. 12-18-00344-CV THOMAS OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC/CROSS-APPELLEE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee V. 2016A key requirement of this section is that “the party seeking attorney’s fees must first prevail on a valid contract claim.” Doctors Hosp. 1997, L.P. v. Sambuca Houston, L.P., 154 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex.2004) (per curiam)). | 3 | 3 |
Jackson Law Office, P.C. v. Chappellgreen2 sentences2009Id. at 23. 2002Id. at 23 . | 2 | 5 |
Hassell Const. Co., Inc. v. Stature Commercial Co.green2 sentences2017Co., Inc. v. Stature Commercial Co., Inc., 162 S.W.3d 664, 668 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[The award of fees to a plaintiff recovering on a valid contract claim is mandatory under [s]ection 38.001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.”). 2013Co., Inc. v. Stature Commercial Co., Inc., 162 S.W.3d 664, 668 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“[T]he award of fees to a plaintiff recovering on a valid contract claim is mandatory under [s]ection 38.001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.”). | 2 | 2 |
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. and Brien Garcia v. Nury Chapagreen2 sentences2011See Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 314 (recognizing that, for purposes of recovering attorneys’ fees, a party must overcome all affirmative defenses to prevail on a contract claim). 2011See Chapa , 212 S.W.3d at 314 (recognizing that, for purposes of recovering attorneys’ fees, a party must overcome all affirmative defenses to prevail on a contract claim). | 2 | 2 |
Southland Corp. v. Kilgore & Kilgoregreen2 sentences2005Mustang Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex.2004) (party not entitled to attorney’s fees under 38.001 because they did not have a valid contract claim); Sikes v. Zuloaga, 830 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, no writ) (recovery of valid claim in suit on a contract required to recover attorney’s fees under 38.001); Huddleston v. Pace, 790 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (condition precedent to attorney’s fee recovery is pleading and proof of a valid claim); see also In re Southland Corp., 19 F.3d 1084, 1088 (5th Cir.1994) (statut 2004Mustang Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. , 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex. 2004) (party not entitled to attorney’s fees under 38.001 because they did not have a valid contract claim); Sikes v. Zuloaga , 830 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ) (recovery of valid claim in suit on a contract required to recover attorney’s fees under 38.001); Huddleston v. Pace , 790 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (condition precedent to attorney’s fee recovery is pleading and proof of a valid claim); see also In re Southland Corp. , 19 F.3d 1084, 1088 (5th Cir. 1994) | 2 | 2 |
Budd v. Gaygreen2 sentences2005Budd v. Gay, 846 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ); see also Caldwell & Hurst v. Myers, 714 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 2005Budd v. Gay , 846 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ); see also Caldwell & Hurst v. Meyers , 714 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Caldwell & Hurst v. Myersgreen2 sentences2005Budd v. Gay, 846 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ); see also Caldwell & Hurst v. Myers, 714 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 2005Budd v. Gay , 846 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ); see also Caldwell & Hurst v. Meyers , 714 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Huddleston v. Pacegreen2 sentences2005Mustang Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex.2004) (party not entitled to attorney’s fees under 38.001 because they did not have a valid contract claim); Sikes v. Zuloaga, 830 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, no writ) (recovery of valid claim in suit on a contract required to recover attorney’s fees under 38.001); Huddleston v. Pace, 790 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (condition precedent to attorney’s fee recovery is pleading and proof of a valid claim); see also In re Southland Corp., 19 F.3d 1084, 1088 (5th Cir.1994) (statut 2004Mustang Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. , 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex. 2004) (party not entitled to attorney’s fees under 38.001 because they did not have a valid contract claim); Sikes v. Zuloaga , 830 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ) (recovery of valid claim in suit on a contract required to recover attorney’s fees under 38.001); Huddleston v. Pace , 790 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (condition precedent to attorney’s fee recovery is pleading and proof of a valid claim); see also In re Southland Corp. , 19 F.3d 1084, 1088 (5th Cir. 1994) | 2 | 2 |
Sikes v. Zuloagagreen2 sentences2005Mustang Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex.2004) (party not entitled to attorney’s fees under 38.001 because they did not have a valid contract claim); Sikes v. Zuloaga, 830 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, no writ) (recovery of valid claim in suit on a contract required to recover attorney’s fees under 38.001); Huddleston v. Pace, 790 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (condition precedent to attorney’s fee recovery is pleading and proof of a valid claim); see also In re Southland Corp., 19 F.3d 1084, 1088 (5th Cir.1994) (statut 2004Mustang Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. , 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex. 2004) (party not entitled to attorney’s fees under 38.001 because they did not have a valid contract claim); Sikes v. Zuloaga , 830 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ) (recovery of valid claim in suit on a contract required to recover attorney’s fees under 38.001); Huddleston v. Pace , 790 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (condition precedent to attorney’s fee recovery is pleading and proof of a valid claim); see also In re Southland Corp. , 19 F.3d 1084, 1088 (5th Cir. 1994) | 2 | 2 |
in Re Progressive County Mutual Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2015See In Progressive, 439 S.W.3d at 427 (finding severance and abatement of extra-contractual claims was necessary to avoid prejudice because document requests relating to extra-contractual claim were irrelevant to breach of contract claim and far broader than car accident claim that must first be resolved). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
West v. Brenntag Southwest, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012West v. Brenntag Sw., Inc., 168 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. denied). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.