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.
16 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris County v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025App. P. 44.1(a); see Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230, 234-35 (Tex. 2002); Lone Star Gas Co. v. Lemond, 897 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). 60 During the charge conference, BNYM submitted a proposed Question No. 1 for the jury charge that asked, “Was the Rule 11 Agreement a valid contract?[fn]” The footnote to the proposed question cited this Court’s decision in Compass Bank v. Collier for the proposition that when “[t]he evidence and pleadings . . . raised the issue of whether the parties intended the Commitment Letter to be to a binding agreement or whether it contained conditi 2025App. P. 44.1(a); see Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230, 234-35 (Tex. 2002); Lone Star Gas Co. v. Lemond, 897 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). | 10 | 10 |
Lone Star Gas Co. v. Lemondgreen2 sentences2025App. P. 44.1(a); see Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230, 234-35 (Tex. 2002); Lone Star Gas Co. v. Lemond, 897 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). 60 During the charge conference, BNYM submitted a proposed Question No. 1 for the jury charge that asked, “Was the Rule 11 Agreement a valid contract?[fn]” The footnote to the proposed question cited this Court’s decision in Compass Bank v. Collier for the proposition that when “[t]he evidence and pleadings . . . raised the issue of whether the parties intended the Commitment Letter to be to a binding agreement or whether it contained conditi 2025App. P. 44.1(a); see Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230, 234-35 (Tex. 2002); Lone Star Gas Co. v. Lemond, 897 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). | 7 | 7 |
Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. v. Uristagreen2 sentences2009App. P. 44.1(a); see Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. v. Urista , 211 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Tex. 2006); Harris County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 234-35 (Tex. 2002). 2. 2009P. 44.1(a); see Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. v. Urista, 211 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Tex.2006); Harris County v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230, 234-35 (Tex.2002). 2. | 3 | 3 |
Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Baileygreen2 sentences2014Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743 , 749–50 (Tex. 1980). 2012Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743, 749-50 (Tex. 1980). | 2 | 3 |
Debra C. Gunn, M.D., Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P.A., and Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates P.L.L.C. v. Andre McCoy, as Permanent Guardian of Shannon Miles McCoy, an Incapacitated Persongreen2 sentences2022Ltd.?” The jury answered, “No.” 21 “A trial court has considerable discretion to determine proper jury instructions, and we review a trial court’s decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction for an abuse of discretion.” Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645, 675 (Tex. 2018). “[W]e do not reverse a judgment based on charge error unless the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or prevented the petitioner from properly presenting the case to the appellate courts.” Id. 2022Ltd.?” The jury answered, “No.” 21 “A trial court has considerable discretion to determine proper jury instructions, and we review a trial court’s decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction for an abuse of discretion.” Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645, 675 (Tex. 2018). “[W]e do not reverse a judgment based on charge error unless the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or prevented the petitioner from properly presenting the case to the appellate courts.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Romero v. KPH Consolidation, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 230-31 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
BP America Production Company v. Laddex, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2017The court of appeals agreed with the trial court that Laddex had standing, but reversed the judgment based on charge error and remanded for a new trial. 458 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2015). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.