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.
17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sysco Food Services, Inc. v. Trapnellgreen2 sentences2024See Sysco, 890 S.W.2d at 801 (“The doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion is designed to promote judicial efficiency, protect parties from multiple lawsuits, and prevent inconsistent judgments by precluding the relitigation of issues.”). 2024See Sysco, 890 S.W.2d at 801 (“The doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion is designed to promote judicial efficiency, protect parties from multiple lawsuits, and prevent inconsistent judgments by precluding the relitigation of issues.”). | 10 | 14 |
Quinney Electric, Inc. v. Kondos Entertainment, Inc.green2 sentences2015Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994); Quinney Elec., Inc. v. Kondas Entm 't, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam). 2013See Quinney Elec., Inc. v. Rondos Entm’t, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex.1999) (per curiam). | 2 | 2 |
Rexrode v. Bazargreen1 sentence2021Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 718 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 5 precluding the relitigation of issues.”6 Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if a party seeking the benefit of a judgment proves “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first ac | 1 | 1 |
In Re Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2021Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 718 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 5 precluding the relitigation of issues.”6 Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if a party seeking the benefit of a judgment proves “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first ac | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Packergreen1 sentence2021Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 718 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 5 precluding the relitigation of issues.”6 Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if a party seeking the benefit of a judgment proves “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first ac | 1 | 1 |
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.green1 sentence2021Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 718 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 5 precluding the relitigation of issues.”6 Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if a party seeking the benefit of a judgment proves “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first ac | 1 | 1 |
Van Dyke v. Boswell, O'Toole, Davis & Pickeringgreen1 sentence2021Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 718 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 5 precluding the relitigation of issues.”6 Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if a party seeking the benefit of a judgment proves “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first ac | 1 | 1 |
Muckelroy v. Richardson Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2000The doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion can be based on an administrative decision if the “administrative agency [acted] in a judicial capacity and resolve[d] disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties [had] an adequate opportunity to litigate.” United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394, 422 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966); Muckelroy v. Richardson Independent School District, 884 S.W.2d 825, 830 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994, writ den’d); Bryant v. L.H. | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. L. H. Moore Canning Co.green1 sentence2000Moore Canning Co., 509 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974), cert. den’d sub nom., Pope v. Texas, 419 U.S. 845 , 95 S.Ct. 79 , 42 L.Ed.2d 74 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shoregreen2 sentences1993Under the common law doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, a party may be precluded from relitigating an issue if: “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the first action were fully and fairly litigated in the prior action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were east as adversaries in the first action.” Eagle Properties v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex.1990); see Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). 5 The policies underlying issue preclusion are to protect parties f 1993Under the common law doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, a party may be precluded from relitigating an issue if: “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the first action were fully and fairly litigated in the prior action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were east as adversaries in the first action.” Eagle Properties v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex.1990); see Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). 5 The policies underlying issue preclusion are to protect parties f | 1 | 1 |
Eagle Properties, Ltd. v. Scharbauergreen2 sentences1993Under the common law doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, a party may be precluded from relitigating an issue if: “(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the first action were fully and fairly litigated in the prior action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were east as adversaries in the first action.” Eagle Properties v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex.1990); see Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). 5 The policies underlying issue preclusion are to protect parties f 1993Under the common law doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, a party may be precluded from relitigating an issue if: "(1) the facts sought to be litigated in the first action were fully and fairly litigated in the prior action; (2) those facts were *536 essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first action." Eagle Properties v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex.1990); see Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). [5] The policies underlying issue preclusion are to protect pa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Samson Lone Star Limited Partnership, N/K/A Samson Lone Star, L.L.C. v. Charles G. Hooks, III, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Charles G. Hooks, Jr., as Trustee of the Scott Ira McKeever Trust and the David Wayne McKeever Trust, and on Behalf of Chas. G. Hooks & Son, a General Partnership
green
2 sentences2024By contrast, in the defensive context, a party subject to a judgment on an issue in a prior action wants to avoid relitigating that issue, and depending on the circumstances, collateral estoppel may be appropriate. 21 457 S.W.3d at 52 . 22 Samson Lone Star L.P., 497 S.W.3d at 1 . 23 This Court denies petitions for review for a host of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with whether a lower court reached the right conclusions or reasoned correctly. 2024By contrast, in the defensive context, a party subject to a judgment on an issue in a prior action wants to avoid relitigating that issue, and depending on the circumstances, collateral estoppel may be appropriate. 21 457 S.W.3d at 52 . 22 Samson Lone Star L.P., 497 S.W.3d at 1 . 23 This Court denies petitions for review for a host of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with whether a lower court reached the right conclusions or reasoned correctly. | 3 | 2024–2024 |
Charles G. Hooks, III v. Samson Lone Star, Limited Partnership, N/K/A Samson Lone Star Llc
green
2 sentences2024By contrast, in the defensive context, a party subject to a judgment on an issue in a prior action wants to avoid relitigating that issue, and depending on the circumstances, collateral estoppel may be appropriate. 21 457 S.W.3d at 52 . 22 Samson Lone Star L.P., 497 S.W.3d at 1 . 23 This Court denies petitions for review for a host of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with whether a lower court reached the right conclusions or reasoned correctly. 2024By contrast, in the defensive context, a party subject to a judgment on an issue in a prior action wants to avoid relitigating that issue, and depending on the circumstances, collateral estoppel may be appropriate. 21 457 S.W.3d at 52 . 22 Samson Lone Star L.P., 497 S.W.3d at 1 . 23 This Court denies petitions for review for a host of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with whether a lower court reached the right conclusions or reasoned correctly. | 3 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
red
2 sentences2000The doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion can be based on an administrative decision if the “administrative agency [acted] in a judicial capacity and resolve[d] disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties [had] an adequate opportunity to litigate.” United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394, 422 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966); Muckelroy v. Richardson Independent School District, 884 S.W.2d 825, 830 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994, writ den’d); Bryant v. L.H. 2000The doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion can be based on an administrative decision if the “administrative agency [acted] in a judicial capacity and resolve[d] disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties [had] an adequate opportunity to litigate.” United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394, 422 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966); Muckelroy v. Richardson Independent School District, 884 S.W.2d 825, 830 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994, writ den’d); Bryant v. L.H. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McNeal v. California
green
1 sentence2000Moore Canning Co., 509 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974), cert. den’d sub nom., Pope v. Texas, 419 U.S. 845 , 95 S.Ct. 79 , 42 L.Ed.2d 74 (1974). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sewell v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
green
1 sentence2000Moore Canning Co., 509 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974), cert. den’d sub nom., Pope v. Texas, 419 U.S. 845 , 95 S.Ct. 79 , 42 L.Ed.2d 74 (1974). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
B.M.L. Ex Rel. Jones v. Cooper
green
1 sentence2000See Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell , 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994); B.M.L. , 919 S.W.2d at 858 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.