17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appealsgreen2 sentences2009To prevail Trinity “must establish, under the circumstances of the case, that the facts and law permit the trial court to make but one decision.” Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985). 2005To prevail Trinity "must establish, under the circumstances of the case, that the facts and law permit the trial court to make but one decision." Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Rotellogreen2 sentences2007See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 508 (Tex. 1984); Finlan v. Peavy , 205 S.W.3d 647, 654 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.) (both noting that hearing on motion to reinstate is the same hearing with the same burden of proof as a hearing before dismissal). 2007See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 508 (Tex.1984); Fin lan v. Peavy, 205 S.W.3d 647, 654 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.) (both noting that hearing on motion to reinstate is the same hearing with the same burden of proof as a hearing before dismissal). | 4 | 4 |
Finlan v. Peavygreen2 sentences2007See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 508 (Tex. 1984); Finlan v. Peavy , 205 S.W.3d 647, 654 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.) (both noting that hearing on motion to reinstate is the same hearing with the same burden of proof as a hearing before dismissal). 2007See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 508 (Tex.1984); Fin lan v. Peavy, 205 S.W.3d 647, 654 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.) (both noting that hearing on motion to reinstate is the same hearing with the same burden of proof as a hearing before dismissal). | 4 | 4 |
Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson Countygreen1 sentence2022Trinity was unable to produce any evidence to clarify this morass. 5 548 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. 2018), and it is the plaintiffs’ burden to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction, Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Meyers v. JDC/Firethorne, Ltd.green1 sentence2022Trinity was unable to produce any evidence to clarify this morass. 5 548 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. 2018), and it is the plaintiffs’ burden to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction, Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equipmentgreen1 sentence2007Wallingford filed a motion to reinstate on September 23, 2004, asserting her counsel did not receive notice of Trinity’s motion to dismiss until a time after the court signed the 2 See Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equipment, 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999) (setting out two sources of trial court’s authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution). 2 order of dismissal. | 1 | 1 |
Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Cowangreen1 sentence2004Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 823 (Tex. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Pesek v. Murrel's Welding Works, Inc.green2 sentences1981Pesek v. Murrel's Welding Works, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 39, 44 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1977, writ dism'd w. o. j.); Santleben v. Taylor-Evans Seed Co., 585 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1979, no writ). 1981Pesek v. Murrel’s Welding Works, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 39, 44 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1977, writ dism’d w. o. j.); Santleben v. Taylor-Evans Seed Co., 585 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1979, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Santleben v. Taylor-Evans Seed Co.green2 sentences1981Pesek v. Murrel's Welding Works, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 39, 44 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1977, writ dism'd w. o. j.); Santleben v. Taylor-Evans Seed Co., 585 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1979, no writ). 1981Pesek v. Murrel’s Welding Works, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 39, 44 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1977, writ dism’d w. o. j.); Santleben v. Taylor-Evans Seed Co., 585 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1979, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Trinity’s claim does not pose a pure to conserve “judicial time and resources for real and question of law but instead asks the trial court to engage current controversies, rather than abstract, hypothetical, or in a fact-based determination based upon contingent, remote disputes.” Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at 443 (quoting hypothetical facts. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gandy
green
1 sentence1997P. 81(c), except to note that it is controlled by our recent decision in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gandy, 925 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Trinity Portland Cement Division, General Portland Cement Co. v. Coastal Industrial Water Authority Ex Rel. Board of Directors
green
1 sentence1978The court of civil appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment on Trinity’s motion for summary judgment that it recover the sum of $34,412.32. 551 S.W.2d 76 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
National Automobile & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Allco Insurance Agency
green
1 sentence1975A similar fact situation was presented in National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Allco Insurance Agency, 403 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1966, no writ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.