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 2002–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Human Services v. Hindsgreen2 sentences2008Hinds, 904 S.W.2d at 635 . 2008Hinds, 904 S.W.2d at 635 . | 4 | 7 |
City of Fort Worth v. Zimlichgreen2 sentences2008City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich , 29 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Tex. 2000), citing Texas Dep’t of Human Services v. Hinds , 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995). 2008City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Tex. 2000), citing Texas Dep’t of Human Services v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995). | 4 | 4 |
City of Forth Worth v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2005Dist. , 254 F.3d 595 , 603 B 04 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting that the school board was the final decision-maker and A if there is no evidence that the board knew of the protected activity, @ the employee could not show that the activity was the reason she was fired); City of Forth Worth v. Johnson , 105 S.W.3d 154, 164 (Tex. App. C Waco 2003, no pet.) ( A In particular, the employee must show that the person who ultimately made the decision to fire the employee knew of the reported violation of law made by the employee. @ ). 2005Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 603-04 (5th Cir.2001) (noting that the school board was the final decision-maker and “if there is no evidence that the board knew of the protected activity,” the employee could not show that the activity was the reason she was fired); City of Forth Worth v. Johnson, 105 S.W.3d 154, 164 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.) (“In particular, the employee must show that the person who ultimately made the decision to fire the employee knew of the reported violation of law made by the employee.”). | 3 | 3 |
City of Houston v. Levingstongreen2 sentences2023“Once sufficient evidence is produced to support a finding of the non- existence of the causal connection between the termination or suspension and the reported violation of law, the case proceeds as if no presumption had ever existed.” Whitney, 545 S.W.3d at 159–60; City of Houston v. Levingston, 221 S.W.3d 204, 226 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Tex. Nat. 2010“Once suffi *559 cient evidence is produced to support a finding of the non-existence of the causal connection between the termination or suspension and the reported violation of law, the case proceeds as if no presumption had ever existed.” City of Houston v. Levingston, 221 S.W.3d 204, 226 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. McDillgreen2 sentences2017Id. at 724 . 2006Id. at 724 . | 1 | 3 |
Beattie v. Madison County School Districtgreen2 sentences2005Dist. , 254 F.3d 595 , 603 B 04 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting that the school board was the final decision-maker and A if there is no evidence that the board knew of the protected activity, @ the employee could not show that the activity was the reason she was fired); City of Forth Worth v. Johnson , 105 S.W.3d 154, 164 (Tex. App. C Waco 2003, no pet.) ( A In particular, the employee must show that the person who ultimately made the decision to fire the employee knew of the reported violation of law made by the employee. @ ). 2005Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 603-04 (5th Cir.2001) (noting that the school board was the final decision-maker and “if there is no evidence that the board knew of the protected activity,” the employee could not show that the activity was the reason she was fired); City of Forth Worth v. Johnson, 105 S.W.3d 154, 164 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.) (“In particular, the employee must show that the person who ultimately made the decision to fire the employee knew of the reported violation of law made by the employee.”). | 1 | 2 |
Wichita County, Texas v. Hartgreen1 sentence2005Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Needham , 82 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex. 2002) (citing Wichita County v. Hart , 917 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Needhamgreen1 sentence2005Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Needham , 82 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex. 2002) (citing Wichita County v. Hart , 917 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Transportation v. Eddie William Needham
green
2 sentences2015Further, Needham contends that any long- Moreau. 76 S.W.3d at 23 . time TxDOT employee would believe that TxDOT had the authority to investigate a report that an employee violated We disagree with the court of appeals' conclusion, because it a criminal law not *319 only for TxDOT's own internal relies on a pre–1995 amendment case. 2002Because TxDOT’s policy gave it the power to discipline an employee based on a reported violation, the court of appeals held that TxDOT qualified as an appropriate law enforcement authority under Moreau. 76 S.W.3d at 23 . | 2 | 2002–2015 |
McCollough v. McCollough
green
1 sentence2025As for the and the court of appeals concluded that "a report element, Lueck's pleadings affirmatively traditional or no-evidence motion for summary negate the existence of a reported violation. judgment is the proper avenue for raising Lueck's fifth amended petition states that Lueck [TxDOT's] concerns that its evidence would "believed and reported in good faith that if the negate two essential elements of Lueck's Department did not pursue an immediate and [W]histleblower claim." 212 S.W.3d at 638 n. 4. positive resolution to Cooper's October 29, While both of these options are available, and | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Whitney v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist.
green
1 sentence2023“Once sufficient evidence is produced to support a finding of the non- existence of the causal connection between the termination or suspension and the reported violation of law, the case proceeds as if no presumption had ever existed.” Whitney, 545 S.W.3d at 159–60; City of Houston v. Levingston, 221 S.W.3d 204, 226 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Tex. Nat. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Garza v. City of Mission
green
2 sentences2003McDill, 914 S.W.2d at 724 ; Garza, 684 S.W.2d at 152 . 2003McDill, 914 S.W.2d at 724 ; Garza, 684 S.W.2d at 152 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.