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 2 courts 1981–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2021See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 (holding if pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, a plea may be granted without allowing plaintiff the opportunity to amend); Bell, 146 S.W.3d at 825 (holding that the trial court properly granted the City of Dallas’s motion to dismiss when the plaintiffs failed to plead a valid takings claim). 2016See Bell, 146 S.W.3d at 825 (holding that the trial court properly granted the City of Dallas’s motion to dismiss when the plaintiffs failed to plead a valid takings claim). | 3 | 3 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2021See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 (holding if pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, a plea may be granted without allowing plaintiff the opportunity to amend); Bell, 146 S.W.3d at 825 (holding that the trial court properly granted the City of Dallas’s motion to dismiss when the plaintiffs failed to plead a valid takings claim). 2016See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 (holding if pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction a plea may be granted without allowing plaintiff opportunity to amend); Bell, 146 S.W.3d at 825 (holding that the trial court properly granted the City of Dallas’s motion to dismiss when the plaintiffs failed to plead a valid takings claim); see also City of Carrollton, 02-15-00119-CV, 2016 WL 93031 , at *4. | 2 | 2 |
City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.green2 sentences2004See Clear Channel Outdoor, No. 14-03-00022, 2004 WL 63561 at ⅜ 1-⅝2 (recognizing that Missouri Pacific remains good law and applying its holding); Webb v. City of Dallas, 314 F.3d 787 , 795-96 (5th Cir.2002) (refusing to certify to Texas Supreme Court question of whether “sue and be sued” language waived City of Dallas’s immunity from suit because controlling authority from supreme court, i.e., Missouri Pacific, already addressed issue). 2004See Clear Channel Outdoor , No. 14-03-00022, 2004 WL 63561 at *1-*2 (recognizing that Missouri Pacific remains good law and applying its holding); Webb v. City of Dallas , 314 F.3d 787, 795-96 (5th Cir. 2002) (refusing to certify to Texas Supreme Court question of whether “sue and be sued” language waived City of Dallas’s immunity from suit because controlling authority from supreme court, i.e, Missouri Pacific , already addressed issue). | 2 | 2 |
Webb v. City of Dallas TXgreen2 sentences2004See Clear Channel Outdoor, No. 14-03-00022, 2004 WL 63561 at ⅜ 1-⅝2 (recognizing that Missouri Pacific remains good law and applying its holding); Webb v. City of Dallas, 314 F.3d 787 , 795-96 (5th Cir.2002) (refusing to certify to Texas Supreme Court question of whether “sue and be sued” language waived City of Dallas’s immunity from suit because controlling authority from supreme court, i.e., Missouri Pacific, already addressed issue). 2004See Clear Channel Outdoor , No. 14-03-00022, 2004 WL 63561 at *1-*2 (recognizing that Missouri Pacific remains good law and applying its holding); Webb v. City of Dallas , 314 F.3d 787, 795-96 (5th Cir. 2002) (refusing to certify to Texas Supreme Court question of whether “sue and be sued” language waived City of Dallas’s immunity from suit because controlling authority from supreme court, i.e, Missouri Pacific , already addressed issue). | 1 | 2 |
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Howardgreen2 sentences2022The second line of cases originates from the Austin Court of Appeals, which holds that “the validity of a filing of a notice of lis pendens is judged by the pleadings on file at the time the transaction with respect to the property occurred.” Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Howard, 240 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied). 2022The second line of cases originates from the Austin Court of Appeals, which holds that “the validity of a filing of a notice of lis pendens is judged by the pleadings on file at the time the transaction with respect to the property occurred.” Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Howard, 240 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Carr v. Huntgreen1 sentence2015Id. at 858; see also mitted a material error in instructing the jury regarding Carr v. Hunt, 651 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas issue 3 that they could consider consequential loss, © 2015 Thomson Reuters. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Trinity Universal Insurance Co.green1 sentence2015Co., 64 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Fire Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Slaughter v. Abilene State Schoolgreen1 sentence2008That case is cited for the proposition that “a farm tractor is within the scope of the statute providing that no person shall operate a motor vehicle when he is in an intoxicated condition.” See Slaughter v. Abilene State Sch., 561 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Golden Rule Insurance Co. v. Harpergreen1 sentence2002They rely heavily on the case of Bridas Corp. v. Unocal Corp., 16 S.W.3d 887 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.), for the proposition that the correct test is the one found in Golden Rule Insurance Co. v. Harper, 925 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appealsgreen1 sentence2002See Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 684 ; Dixon, 365 S.W.2d at 923 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas
green
2 sentences2025No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Reata Const. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (2006) 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 811 We grant the City of Dallas's motion for rehearing. 2025No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Reata Const. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (2006) 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 811 We grant the City of Dallas's motion for rehearing. | 3 | 2008–2025 |
City of Dallas v. Heard
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
In Re the City of Dallas
green
2 sentences2015PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.5(a), (e)(3) (2003); and RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW Nathan L. Hecht Justice Page 1 977 S.W.2d 798 , *; 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5352 , ** IN RE THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS NO. 2-98-207-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, SECOND DISTRICT, FORT WORTH 977 S.W.2d 798 ; 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5352 August 25, 1998, Delivered DISPOSITION: [**1] Dallas's petition for writ of The question presented in this mandamus proceeding mandamus denied. is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the City of Dallas's motion to transfer venue to Dallas County under the mandatory venue pro 2015PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.5(a), (e)(3) (2003); and RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW Nathan L. Hecht Justice Page 1 977 S.W.2d 798 , *; 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5352 , ** IN RE THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS NO. 2-98-207-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, SECOND DISTRICT, FORT WORTH 977 S.W.2d 798 ; 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5352 August 25, 1998, Delivered DISPOSITION: [**1] Dallas's petition for writ of The question presented in this mandamus proceeding mandamus denied. is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the City of Dallas's motion to transfer venue to Dallas County under the mandatory venue pro | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Dallas v. Dixon
green
1 sentence2002See Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 684 ; Dixon, 365 S.W.2d at 923 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bridas Corp. v. Unocal Corp.
green
1 sentence2002They rely heavily on the case of Bridas Corp. v. Unocal Corp., 16 S.W.3d 887 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.), for the proposition that the correct test is the one found in Golden Rule Insurance Co. v. Harper, 925 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex.1996). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
City of Dallas v. Spainhouer
green
1 sentence1992In so doing, the Dallas Court of Appeals, confronted with undisputed facts virtually identical with those in this case, wrote, “[w]e hold that this statute, properly construed, does not entitle Spainhouer to be paid for hours not actually worked on the job.” Spainhouer, 758 S.W.2d at 612 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. City of Dallas
green
1 sentence1981The trial court granted Dallas’ motion for summary judgment and the court of civil appeals affirmed the judgment. 594 S.W.2d 766 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.