17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gigliobianco v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). 2010See Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). | 4 | 4 |
Hollifield v. Hollifieldgreen2 sentences2009See Hollifield v. Hollifield , 925 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no writ); Clancy v. Zale Corp ., 705 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 2009See Hollifield v. Hollifield, 925 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no writ); Clancy v. Zale Corp., 705 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 3 | 3 |
Clancy v. Zale Corp.green2 sentences2009See Hollifield v. Hollifield, 925 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no writ); Clancy v. Zale Corp., 705 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 2009See Hollifield v. Hollifield , 925 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no writ); Clancy v. Zale Corp ., 705 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 3 | 3 |
Grayson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Grayson v. State, 192 S.W.3d 790 , 793 16 In Darty v. State, 709 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jody James Farms, Jv v. the Altman Group, Inc. and Laurie Diazgreen1 sentence2023Standard of Review “Arbitration is a creature of contract between consenting parties.” Jody James Farms, JV v. Altman Grp., Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tex. 2018). “[A] party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the existence of a 2 According to Hamilton’s brief, Sharon Hamilton appeared at the hearing and testified as a live witness; Jonathan Thompson did not. | 1 | 1 |
Darty v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Grayson v. State, 192 S.W.3d 790 , 793 16 In Darty v. State, 709 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2018See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 3 Acreman’s argument in his brief complains of the trial court’s exclusion of “critical evidence.” The record of the trial court’s hearing on Hamilton’s motion to dismiss does not indicate the trial court excluded any evidence offered by Acreman. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Furygreen1 sentence2018See State v. Fury, 186 S.W.3d 67, 74 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d); Garza v. State, 425 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial where evidence was potentially discoverable at the outset). | 1 | 1 |
Jose Garza v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See State v. Fury, 186 S.W.3d 67, 74 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d); Garza v. State, 425 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial where evidence was potentially discoverable at the outset). | 1 | 1 |
in Re Gene Timberlake, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Joan Hughes Timberlakegreen1 sentence2018See In re Johnson, No. 14-09-00782-CV, 2009 WL 2 3347563, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 20, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding order setting aside default judgment signed after motion to modify was overruled by operation of law but within trial court’s period of plenary power was “timely signed”); see also In re Timberlake, 501 S.W.3d 105, 112 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding) (concluding trial court can grant “motion for new trial after it has been overruled by operation of law, so long as the order granting new trial is signed within the plenary | 1 | 1 |
Landis v. Landisgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Landis v. Landis, 307 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 2, 2009, no pet.) (“A trial court is only required to conduct a hearing on a motion for new trial when a motion presents a question of fact upon which evidence must be heard.”). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Boardgreen1 sentence2010See Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443-45 (Tex. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Pollack v. McMurreygreen1 sentence2008See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reyes v. State
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Cravin v. State
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hamilton v. Sowers
green
2 sentences1990On appeal, the court of civil appeals stated that “[t]here is insufficient evidence to prove [Dr.] Capper was negligent in the diagnostic treatment, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied in a case such as this.” 554 S.W.2d at 228 . 1990On appeal, the court of civil appeals stated that "[t]here is insufficient evidence to prove [Dr.] Capper was negligent in the diagnostic treatment, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied in a case such as this." 554 S.W.2d at 228 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.