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 1998–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Max Duncan Family Investments, Ltd. v. NTFN INC.green2 sentences2020See Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also Max Duncan Family Inv[s]., Ltd. v. NTFN Inc., 267 S.W.3d 447 , 453–54 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s suit to invalidate promissory note and lien securing note “involve[d] more than just title and possession of real property”); Cadle Co. v. Ortiz, 227 S.W.3d 831 , 837–38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi[– Edinburg] 2007, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s post- foreclosure suit to invalidate mechanic’s lien distinguished from trespass[-]to[-]try[-]title action); Sw. 2011See Florey , 212 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also Max Duncan Family Inv., Ltd. v. NTFN Inc. , 267 S.W.3d 447 , 453–54 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s suit to invalidate promissory note and lien securing note “involve[d] more than just title and possession of real property”); Cadle Co. v. Ortiz , 227 S.W.3d 831 , 837–38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s post-foreclosure suit to invalidate mechanic’s lien distinguished from trespass to try title action); Sw. | 2 | 2 |
Florey v. Estate of McConnellgreen2 sentences2020See Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also Max Duncan Family Inv[s]., Ltd. v. NTFN Inc., 267 S.W.3d 447 , 453–54 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s suit to invalidate promissory note and lien securing note “involve[d] more than just title and possession of real property”); Cadle Co. v. Ortiz, 227 S.W.3d 831 , 837–38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi[– Edinburg] 2007, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s post- foreclosure suit to invalidate mechanic’s lien distinguished from trespass[-]to[-]try[-]title action); Sw. 2011See Florey , 212 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also Max Duncan Family Inv., Ltd. v. NTFN Inc. , 267 S.W.3d 447 , 453–54 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s suit to invalidate promissory note and lien securing note “involve[d] more than just title and possession of real property”); Cadle Co. v. Ortiz , 227 S.W.3d 831 , 837–38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s post-foreclosure suit to invalidate mechanic’s lien distinguished from trespass to try title action); Sw. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Labatt Food Service, L.P.green2 sentences2010The case at hand presents the second type of challenge: a broad challenge to the entire contract on the ground that the “Funding” provision is illusory, and, therefore, there is no binding contract. . “[U]nless a challenge is to the arbitration clause or arbitration agreement itself, ... the question of a contract’s validity is for the arbitrator and not the courts.” Id. at 649 . 2010The case at hand presents the second type of challenge: a broad challenge to the entire contract on the ground that the “Funding” provision is illusory, and, therefore, there is no binding contract. “[U]nless a challenge is to the arbitration clause or arbitration agreement itself, . . . the question of a contract’s validity is for the arbitrator and not the courts.” Id. at 649 . | 1 | 3 |
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2021See Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 70 (2010); Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. 2020Rent- A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 70, 130 S. Ct. 2772 , 2778, 177 L. | 1 | 2 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2025The second type of violation occurs “when one branch unduly interferes with another branch so that the other branch cannot effectively exercise its constitutionally assigned powers.” Id. (quoting Martinez v. State, 323 S.W.3d 493, 501 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Bustamantegreen1 sentence2018Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 , 669 n. 48 (Tex. 2009); Jordan v. Bustamante, 158 S.W.3d 29, 34 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).6 The second type of claim challenges an adverse interest that indirectly impacts title and possession. | 1 | 1 |
Schlup v. Delored1 sentence2018The second type of claim, a Schlup-type claim, is a “procedural claim in which applicant’s claim of innocence does not provide a basis for relief, but is tied to a showing of constitutional error at trial.” Id. (citing Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Franklin
green
2 sentences2018The second type of claim, a Schlup-type claim, is a “procedural claim in which applicant’s claim of innocence does not provide a basis for relief, but is tied to a showing of constitutional error at trial.” Id. (citing Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314 (1995)). 2014The second type of claim, a Schlup-type claim, is a "procedural claim in which applicant’s claim of innocence does not provide a basis for relief, but is tied to a showing of constitutional error at trial." Franklin, 72 S.W.3d at 675 . | 3 | 2014–2018 |
Cadle Co. v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences2020See Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also Max Duncan Family Inv[s]., Ltd. v. NTFN Inc., 267 S.W.3d 447 , 453–54 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s suit to invalidate promissory note and lien securing note “involve[d] more than just title and possession of real property”); Cadle Co. v. Ortiz, 227 S.W.3d 831 , 837–38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi[– Edinburg] 2007, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s post- foreclosure suit to invalidate mechanic’s lien distinguished from trespass[-]to[-]try[-]title action); Sw. 2011See Florey , 212 S.W.3d at 449 ; see also Max Duncan Family Inv., Ltd. v. NTFN Inc. , 267 S.W.3d 447 , 453–54 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s suit to invalidate promissory note and lien securing note “involve[d] more than just title and possession of real property”); Cadle Co. v. Ortiz , 227 S.W.3d 831 , 837–38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s post-foreclosure suit to invalidate mechanic’s lien distinguished from trespass to try title action); Sw. | 2 | 2011–2020 |
Rsl Funding, LLC and Rsl Special-Iv Limited Partnership v. Rickey Newsome
green
1 sentence2025“The second type of challenge—to the validity of the arbitration provision specifically—is for the court to decide unless clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator.” Id. (citing Robinson v. Home Owners Mgmt. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Tyler v. Likes
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 496 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mindi M. v. Flagship Hotel, Ltd
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Oursbourn v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 173–74. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co.
green
1 sentence2018Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 , 669 n. 48 (Tex. 2009); Jordan v. Bustamante, 158 S.W.3d 29, 34 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).6 The second type of claim challenges an adverse interest that indirectly impacts title and possession. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Green International, Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence1998Missouri Pacific R.R., 453 S.W.2d at 813 ; Green Int’l, 877 S.W.2d at 432 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Brownsville Navigation District
red
1 sentence1998Missouri Pacific R.R., 453 S.W.2d at 813 ; Green Int’l, 877 S.W.2d at 432 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.