15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robert I. Moore v. Charles Otero, Individually and as Chief of Police, City of Tampa, Florida, Etc.green2 sentences2003AThe internal transfer of an employee, unless it constitutes such a change of status as to be regarded essentially as a loss of employment, does not provide the 7 additional loss of a tangible interest necessary to give rise to a liberty interest meriting protection under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.@ See Moore v. Otero, 557 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir. 1977) (affirming summary judgment finding no deprivation of liberty interest when corporal returned to patrolman status) (footnote 11 omitted). 2003"The internal transfer of an employee, unless it constitutes such a change of status as to be regarded essentially as a loss of employment, does not provide the additional loss of a tangible interest necessary to give rise to a liberty interest meriting protection under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment." See Moore v. Otero , 557 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir. 1977) (affirming summary judgment finding no deprivation of liberty interest when corporal returned to patrolman status) (footnote 11 omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Bibiana Floresgreen2 sentences2026Just. v. Flores, 555 S.W.3d 656, 667 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.) (“That doctrine permits an employee who resigns, rather than being terminated, to satisfy the discharge requirement of a discriminatory discharge claim.”). 2025Just. v. Flores, 555 S.W.3d 656, 667 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.) (“That doctrine permits an employee who resigns, rather than being terminated, to satisfy the discharge requirement of a discriminatory discharge claim.”). | 2 | 2 |
Ahsan Ahmad FARUKI; Ahmed R. Azeez; Zafar M. Agha, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARSONS S.I.P., INC., Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2006Faruki v. Parsons S.I.P., Inc ., 123 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1997). 2006Faruki v. Parsons S.I.P., Inc., 123 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir.1997). | 2 | 2 |
Waffle House, Inc. v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2018See Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 805 (Tex. 2010)(“A constructive discharge qualifies as an adverse personnel action under the [Labor Code] . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
Davila v. Lockwoodgreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex.1995) (court presumed constructive discharge would violate Texas Whistleblower Act prohibition against “suspension, discharge, or discrimination” against an employee for reporting a violation of the law, but ruled against employee on other grounds); Passons v. University of Texas, 969 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (court equated “constructive discharge” with the “discharge” element of Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.051 (Vernon 1996), but ruled for em *902 ployee on other grounds); Davila v. Lockwood, 933 S.W.2d 628, | 1 | 1 |
Passons v. University of Texas at Austingreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex.1995) (court presumed constructive discharge would violate Texas Whistleblower Act prohibition against “suspension, discharge, or discrimination” against an employee for reporting a violation of the law, but ruled against employee on other grounds); Passons v. University of Texas, 969 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (court equated “constructive discharge” with the “discharge” element of Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.051 (Vernon 1996), but ruled for em *902 ployee on other grounds); Davila v. Lockwood, 933 S.W.2d 628, | 1 | 1 |
City of Beaumont v. Bouilliongreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex.1995) (court presumed constructive discharge would violate Texas Whistleblower Act prohibition against “suspension, discharge, or discrimination” against an employee for reporting a violation of the law, but ruled against employee on other grounds); Passons v. University of Texas, 969 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (court equated “constructive discharge” with the “discharge” element of Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 21.051 (Vernon 1996), but ruled for em *902 ployee on other grounds); Davila v. Lockwood, 933 S.W.2d 628, | 1 | 1 |
Arthur Nickolas Newsome v. Batavia Local School Districtgreen1 sentence1995See Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247, 1252-54 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that ex parte presentation of evidence during an employee’s discharge hearing denied the employee due process); Newsome, 842 F.2d at 927-28 (holding that ex parte presentation of evidence during a high school student’s expulsion hearing denied the student due process). | 1 | 1 |
Gary D. Swank v. James Smartgreen1 sentence1995See Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247, 1252-54 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that ex parte presentation of evidence during an employee’s discharge hearing denied the employee due process); Newsome, 842 F.2d at 927-28 (holding that ex parte presentation of evidence during a high school student’s expulsion hearing denied the student due process). | 1 | 1 |
Investment Properties Management, Inc. v. Montesgreen1 sentence1994Investment Properties Management, Inc. v. Montes, 821 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Meshell v. Stategreen1 sentence1988CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 28.061 (Vernon Supp.1988), which provides that if an accusation is set aside for failure to provide a speedy trial, the defendant shall be discharged and such discharge shall bar “any further prosecution for the offense charged [[Image here]] In Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246, 255-58 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (en banc), the Court, in addition to declaring art. 32A.02 unconstitutional, struck down the provisions of art. 28.061 which make the discharge because of violation of the Speedy Trial Act a bar to further prosecution for the offense discharged. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
METAL STRUCTURES CORPORATION v. Bigham
green
1 sentence2020The court held that the salesman’s discharge did not bar him from recovering the commission he had “already earned.” Id. at 273–74. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of NJ
red
1 sentence2016But the rationale for the Court’s decision rests in part on the discharge rule articulated in The Michael Tracy, See id. at 736-37, 63 S.Ct. 930 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kaufman v. Hurwitz
green
1 sentence2015Kaufman v. Hurwitz, 4 self-incrimination, to divulge whether he Cir., 176 F.2d 210 . was a Communist was not entitled by right to receive a commission as an Army This Court has applied similar prin- officer, although he had apparently sat· ciples in a series of cases involving isfied every other prerequisite for a com- claims under the Fourteenth Amend- mission. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chacon v. State
green
1 sentence1988Under the holding in Chacon v. State, 745 S.W.2d 377 , (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (not yet reported), the invalidation of articles 32A.02 and 28.061 deprive appellant of the right to rely on those statutes as a bar to the present prosecution. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.