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.
18 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1919–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ovalle v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511, 520 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (jury is presumed to have followed trial court’s instructions). 2007Ovalle v. State , 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Hull v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 221 (Tex. Crim. 2006See Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 221 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
McClenan v. Statered2 sentences2006While a judge’s arbitrary refusal to consider the entire range of punishment may be a proper ground for a motion to recuse, see McClenan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. 2006While a judge’s arbitrary refusal to consider the entire range of punishment may be a proper ground for a motion to recuse, see McClenan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Alexander v. Hagedorngreen2 sentences2011Under the Alexander standard, before a litigant can successfully invoke a bill of review to set aside a final judgment, “he must allege and prove: (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) which he was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposite party, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own.” Alexander, 226 S.W.2d at 998 . 2011Under the Alexander standard, before a litigant can successfully invoke a bill of review to set aside a final judgment, “he must allege and prove: (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) which he was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposite party, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own.” Alexander, 226 S.W.2d at 998 . | 1 | 2 |
Alabama v. Whitegreen1 sentence2021See id. | 1 | 1 |
in Re Commitment of Carlos Cortezgreen1 sentence2013No. 09-12-00385-CV, 2013 WL 3270613, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 27, 2013, no pet. h.). | 1 | 1 |
De La Paz v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See De La Alexander v. State Page 10 Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 343 ; see also Prible, 175 S.W.3d at 731 . | 1 | 1 |
Prible v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See De La Alexander v. State Page 10 Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 343 ; see also Prible, 175 S.W.3d at 731 . | 1 | 1 |
Bushell v. Deangreen1 sentence2011App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Bushell v. Dean, 803 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1991) (op. on reh’g). 6 It is possible that a reference in Alexander’s brief relates to her contention in the trial court that Wells Fargo failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for admissions; however, Wells Fargo filed its timely response to that discovery in the clerk’s record. | 1 | 1 |
MacKay v. Charles W. Sexton Companygreen1 sentence2011Sexton Co., 469 S.W.2d 441, 444-45 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1971, no writ) (“negligence or oversight” of employee of bill of review plaintiff precluded bill of review plaintiff from meeting third element of Alexander standard). | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. Greengreen1 sentence2011See Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 444 . | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Gallaghergreen1 sentence2010See Drecker , 200 S.W.3d at 811 (affirming dismissal as frivolous inmate’s claims of deprivation of access to law library where inmate did not allege “his efforts to pursue a legal claim or defense in court were in any way impeded”); see also Scott , 209 S.W.3d at 267–68 (affirming dismissal as frivolous inmate’s claims of “civil assault and battery” where inmate failed to allege use of force was malicious or in bad faith, which was element required to avoid correctional officer’s privilege to use force to maintain security or safety). | 1 | 1 |
Wesbrook v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See id. | 1 | 1 |
Decker v. Dunbargreen1 sentence2010See Drecker , 200 S.W.3d at 811 (affirming dismissal as frivolous inmate’s claims of deprivation of access to law library where inmate did not allege “his efforts to pursue a legal claim or defense in court were in any way impeded”); see also Scott , 209 S.W.3d at 267–68 (affirming dismissal as frivolous inmate’s claims of “civil assault and battery” where inmate failed to allege use of force was malicious or in bad faith, which was element required to avoid correctional officer’s privilege to use force to maintain security or safety). | 1 | 1 |
Colburn v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511, 520 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (jury is presumed to have followed trial court’s instructions). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. King Ranch, Inc.green2 sentences2001See Alexander, 226 S.W.2d at 1001 ; see also Chapman v. King Ranch, Inc., 41 S.W.3d 693, 700-01 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. filed) (bill of review attacking judgment over one hundred years old; summary judgment reversed and cause remanded for trial). 2001See Alexander, 226 S.W.2d at 1001 ; see also Chapman v. King Ranch, Inc., 41 S.W.3d 693, 700-01 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. filed) (bill of review attacking judgment over one hundred years old; summary judgment reversed and cause remanded for trial). | 1 | 1 |
May v. City of McKinneygreen1 sentence1989See Price v. Hurt, 711 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986, no writ) (defendant entitled to summary judgment if the proof establishes that one element of plaintiff’s cause of action does not exist); May v. City of McKinney, 479 S.W.2d 114, 120 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Hurtgreen1 sentence1989See Price v. Hurt, 711 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986, no writ) (defendant entitled to summary judgment if the proof establishes that one element of plaintiff’s cause of action does not exist); May v. City of McKinney, 479 S.W.2d 114, 120 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co.
red
1 sentence2014Id.; Wyatt, 760 S.W.2d at 247 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Living Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Penalver
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 681-82 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011In Craddock , which involved a direct appeal of the trial court’s order denying a defendant’s timely motion for new trial, the supreme court stated the following rule: “A default judgment should be set aside and a new trial ordered in any case in which the failure of the defendant to answer before judgment was not intentional, or the result of conscious indifference on his part, but was due to a mistake or an accident; provided the motion for new trial sets up a meritorious defense and is filed at a time when the granting thereof will occasion no delay or otherwise work an injury to the plaint 2011In Craddock , which involved a direct appeal of the trial court’s order denying a defendant’s timely motion for new trial, the supreme court stated the following rule: “A default judgment should be set aside and a new trial ordered in any case in which the failure of the defendant to answer before judgment was not intentional, or the result of conscious indifference on his part, but was due to a mistake or an accident; provided the motion for new trial sets up a meritorious defense and is filed at a time when the granting thereof will occasion no delay or otherwise work an injury to the plaint | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2009Strickland , 466 U.S. at 692 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Garner v. Black
neutral
2 sentences1919Garner v. Black, 95 Tex. 125 , 63 S.W. 918 . 1919Garner v. Black, 95 Tex. 125 , 63 S. W. 918 . | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.