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.
15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co.green2 sentences2010See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co. , 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989). 2010See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1989). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Smith Barney, Inc.green2 sentences2004See In re Smith Barney, 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex.1998). 3 . 2004See In re Smith Barney, 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex.1998). 3 . | 2 | 2 |
Direct Color Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.green2 sentences2004See In re Smith Barney , 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. 1998). [3] See Exxon Corp. v. Choo , 881 S.W.2d 301 , 302 n.2 (Tex. 1994). [4] In dismissing the claims of the seventy non-resident plaintiffs, the trial court = s order did not identify an alternative forum, but accepted appellees = stipulation that, if the dismissed plaintiffs file actions in their respective home states within one year of the dismissal, ESC would not object to jurisdiction, and any applicable statute of limitations would be tolled. [5] See, e.g., Direct Color Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 929 S.W.2d 558, 564 (Tex. App 2004See In re Smith Barney , 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. 1998). [3] See Exxon Corp. v. Choo , 881 S.W.2d 301 , 302 n.2 (Tex. 1994). [4] In dismissing the claims of the seventy non-resident plaintiffs, the trial court = s order did not identify an alternative forum, but accepted appellees = stipulation that, if the dismissed plaintiffs file actions in their respective home states within one year of the dismissal, ESC would not object to jurisdiction, and any applicable statute of limitations would be tolled. [5] See, e.g., Direct Color Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 929 S.W.2d 558, 564 (Tex. App | 2 | 2 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences1997He asserts that if he had earlier been aware of State's exhibit 24, he would have asked for a Wade/Gilbert hearing, see Martinez v. State , 437 S.W.2d 842, 848 (Tex. Crim. 1990Martinez v. State, 437 S.W.2d 842, 848 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). | 2 | 2 |
Heien v. North Carolinagreen1 sentence2016See Heien, 135 S.Ct. at 540 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Texas v. Rosseau, Robert Louisgreen1 sentence2016State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550, 557 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (“[T]o prevail on a facial challenge, a party must establish that the statute always operates unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances.”); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Exxon Corp. v. Choogreen2 sentences2004See In re Smith Barney , 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. 1998). [3] See Exxon Corp. v. Choo , 881 S.W.2d 301 , 302 n.2 (Tex. 1994). [4] In dismissing the claims of the seventy non-resident plaintiffs, the trial court = s order did not identify an alternative forum, but accepted appellees = stipulation that, if the dismissed plaintiffs file actions in their respective home states within one year of the dismissal, ESC would not object to jurisdiction, and any applicable statute of limitations would be tolled. [5] See, e.g., Direct Color Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 929 S.W.2d 558, 564 (Tex. App 2004See In re Smith Barney , 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. 1998). [3] See Exxon Corp. v. Choo , 881 S.W.2d 301 , 302 n.2 (Tex. 1994). [4] In dismissing the claims of the seventy non-resident plaintiffs, the trial court = s order did not identify an alternative forum, but accepted appellees = stipulation that, if the dismissed plaintiffs file actions in their respective home states within one year of the dismissal, ESC would not object to jurisdiction, and any applicable statute of limitations would be tolled. [5] See, e.g., Direct Color Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 929 S.W.2d 558, 564 (Tex. App | 1 | 1 |
Sarieddine v. Moussagreen2 sentences2004See In re Smith Barney , 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. 1998). [3] See Exxon Corp. v. Choo , 881 S.W.2d 301 , 302 n.2 (Tex. 1994). [4] In dismissing the claims of the seventy non-resident plaintiffs, the trial court = s order did not identify an alternative forum, but accepted appellees = stipulation that, if the dismissed plaintiffs file actions in their respective home states within one year of the dismissal, ESC would not object to jurisdiction, and any applicable statute of limitations would be tolled. [5] See, e.g., Direct Color Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 929 S.W.2d 558, 564 (Tex. App 2004See In re Smith Barney , 975 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. 1998). [3] See Exxon Corp. v. Choo , 881 S.W.2d 301 , 302 n.2 (Tex. 1994). [4] In dismissing the claims of the seventy non-resident plaintiffs, the trial court = s order did not identify an alternative forum, but accepted appellees = stipulation that, if the dismissed plaintiffs file actions in their respective home states within one year of the dismissal, ESC would not object to jurisdiction, and any applicable statute of limitations would be tolled. [5] See, e.g., Direct Color Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 929 S.W.2d 558, 564 (Tex. App | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Leegreen2 sentences1991McNutt v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 693 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, writ dism’d); see also Cole v. Lee, 435 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, writ dism’d); Forcum-Dean Co. v. Missouri Pac. 1991McNutt v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 693 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, writ dism’d); see also Cole v. Lee, 435 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, writ dism’d); Forcum-Dean Co. v. Missouri Pac. | 1 | 1 |
McNutt v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1991McNutt v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 693 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, writ dism’d); see also Cole v. Lee, 435 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, writ dism’d); Forcum-Dean Co. v. Missouri Pac. 1991McNutt v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 693 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, writ dism’d); see also Cole v. Lee, 435 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, writ dism’d); Forcum-Dean Co. v. Missouri Pac. | 1 | 1 |
Pizano v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1988Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court recognized that apart from the felony-murder rule, "malice may be established when a defendant initiates a gun battle, and that under such circumstances he may be convicted of murder for a killing committed by another." People v. Gilbert, supra, 408 P.2d at 373 (citing Judge Traynor's opinion in People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 , 781-82 , 44 Cal.Rptr. 442 , *Page 273 402 P.2d 130 , 133 (1965), in which he noted that "when the defendant intends to kill or intentionally commits acts that are likely to kill with a 1988Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court recognized that apart from the felony-murder rule, "malice may be established when a defendant initiates a gun battle, and that under such circumstances he may be convicted of murder for a killing committed by another." People v. Gilbert, supra, 408 P.2d at 373 (citing Judge Traynor's opinion in People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 , 781-82 , 44 Cal.Rptr. 442 , *Page 273 402 P.2d 130 , 133 (1965), in which he noted that "when the defendant intends to kill or intentionally commits acts that are likely to kill with a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1988Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court recognized that apart from the felony-murder rule, "malice may be established when a defendant initiates a gun battle, and that under such circumstances he may be convicted of murder for a killing committed by another." People v. Gilbert, supra, 408 P.2d at 373 (citing Judge Traynor's opinion in People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 , 781-82 , 44 Cal.Rptr. 442 , *Page 273 402 P.2d 130 , 133 (1965), in which he noted that "when the defendant intends to kill or intentionally commits acts that are likely to kill with a 1988Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court recognized that apart from the felony-murder rule, "malice may be established when a defendant initiates a gun battle, and that under such circumstances he may be convicted of murder for a killing committed by another." People v. Gilbert, supra, 408 P.2d at 373 (citing Judge Traynor's opinion in People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 , 781-82 , 44 Cal.Rptr. 442 , *Page 273 402 P.2d 130 , 133 (1965), in which he noted that "when the defendant intends to kill or intentionally commits acts that are likely to kill with a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
red
2 sentences2008Williams asserts that respondent abused his discretion by failing to apply the factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert , 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (the A Gilbert factors @ ). 2008Williams asserts that respondent abused his discretion by failing to apply the factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert , 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (the A Gilbert factors @ ). | 2 | 2004–2008 |
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P.
green
2 sentences2010Gilbert contends it was prejudiced because Underwriters’ actions deprived it of the opportunity to make an informed decision about which risk to take: *137 (1) assert the immunity defense and risk Underwriters’ denying coverage for the breach of contract claim, or (2) refuse to assert the immunity defense and risk Underwriters’ denying coverage because Gilbert breached the cooperation clause. 12 The court of appeals concluded that Underwriters did not assume control of Gilbert’s defense, 245 S.W.3d at 87 . 2010Id. at 37 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n
green
1 sentence2007Gilbert relies on the case of Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 187 S.W.3d 91 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. granted) for the proposition that an insurer need not have total or even extensive control of the insured’s defense for the waiver and estoppel exception to apply. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Gilbert
green
2 sentences1988Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court recognized that apart from the felony-murder rule, "malice may be established when a defendant initiates a gun battle, and that under such circumstances he may be convicted of murder for a killing committed by another." People v. Gilbert, supra, 408 P.2d at 373 (citing Judge Traynor's opinion in People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 , 781-82 , 44 Cal.Rptr. 442 , *Page 273 402 P.2d 130 , 133 (1965), in which he noted that "when the defendant intends to kill or intentionally commits acts that are likely to kill with a 1988Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court recognized that apart from the felony-murder rule, “malice may be established when a defendant initiates a gun battle, and that under such circumstances he may be convicted of murder for a killing committed, by another.” People v. Gilbert, supra, 408 P.2d at 373 (citing Judge Traynor’s opinion in People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777, 781-82 , 44 Cal. *273 Rptr. 442, 402 P.2d 130, 133 (1965), in which he noted that “when the defendant intends to kill or intentionally commits acts that are likely to kill with a consci | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Dowden v. State
green
1 sentence1988Rather, the question is whether he voluntarily fires the gun with the requisite culpable mental state." Dowden, supra, 638 S.W.2d at 88 . 5 The Pizano case held that the " Gilbert test" — whether the killing was in response to malicious conduct in addition to the underlying felony — is inapplicable to "shield" cases. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.