matter of fundamental error in Texas

15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2014 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Texas Industrial Traffic League v. Railroad Commission of Texasgreen tex · 1982 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1984–1993 2 sentences 1993Texas Industrial Traffic League, et al., v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 633 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1982), citing Coffee v. Rice University, 403 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.1966); Sabine River Authority v. Willis, 369 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.1963). 1984The Supreme Court of Texas reversed our judgment, holding that “[fjailure of the party bringing suit to show a justiciable interest in the controversy is not a matter of fundamental error,” and may therefore be waived, and that “[t]he issue of standing was therefore waived” by CCMFA because it failed to raise the issue of “standing” by a “plea in abatement” filed in the district court. 633 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1982).	2	2
Pirtle v. Gregorygreen tex · 1982 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1982–1995 2 sentences 1995See Pirtle v. Gregory , 629 S.W.2d 919, 920 (Tex. 1982) (holding that defendants could not complain on appeal about nonjoinder of indispensable party because they did not complain of error at trial level by exception, plea in abatement, or motion to join other parties); see also Cox v. Johnson , 638 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex. 1982) (holding complaint about nonjoinder of indispensable party ineffectual when error raised for the first time on appeal because nonjoinder was not a matter of fundamental error). 1995Cox , 638 S.W.2d at 868 ; see Pirtle , 629 S.W.2d at 920 ; see also Cooper v. Texas Gulf Indus., Inc. , 513 S.W.2d 200, 204 (Tex. 1974) ("[I]t would be rare indeed if there were a person whose presence was so indispensable in the sense that his absence deprives the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined.").	1	2
Cooper v. Texas Gulf Industries, Inc.green tex · 1974 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1982–1995 2 sentences 1995Cox , 638 S.W.2d at 868 ; see Pirtle , 629 S.W.2d at 920 ; see also Cooper v. Texas Gulf Indus., Inc. , 513 S.W.2d 200, 204 (Tex. 1974) ("[I]t would be rare indeed if there were a person whose presence was so indispensable in the sense that his absence deprives the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined."). 1982Pirtle v. Gregory, supra; Cooper v. Texas Gulf Industries, supra. The contrary holdings of the court of appeals in the present case as well as in Hinojosa v. Love are disapproved.	1	2
Ramsey v. Dunlopgreen tex · 1947 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1950–1951 2 sentences 1951For a discussion, of the matter of fundamental error ¡under the 1941 rules, seé Ramsey v. Dunlop, 146 Tex. 196 , 205 S.W.2d 979 . 1951For a discussion, of the matter of fundamental error ¡under the 1941 rules, seé Ramsey v. Dunlop, 146 Tex. 196 , 205 S.W.2d 979 .	1	2
Mapco, Inc. v. Cartergreen tex · 1991 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See, e.g., Mapco, Inc. v. Carter, 817 S.W.2d 686, 687-88 (Tex.1991) (per curiam) (summarily reversing and remanding after considering appellant’s contention, raised for the first time before the court of appeals in motion for rehearing, that portion of trial court’s judgment against it was void because it was not a party in the trial court).	1	1
Cox v. Johnsongreen tex · 1982 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See Pirtle v. Gregory , 629 S.W.2d 919, 920 (Tex. 1982) (holding that defendants could not complain on appeal about nonjoinder of indispensable party because they did not complain of error at trial level by exception, plea in abatement, or motion to join other parties); see also Cox v. Johnson , 638 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex. 1982) (holding complaint about nonjoinder of indispensable party ineffectual when error raised for the first time on appeal because nonjoinder was not a matter of fundamental error). 1995Cox , 638 S.W.2d at 868 ; see Pirtle , 629 S.W.2d at 920 ; see also Cooper v. Texas Gulf Indus., Inc. , 513 S.W.2d 200, 204 (Tex. 1974) ("[I]t would be rare indeed if there were a person whose presence was so indispensable in the sense that his absence deprives the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined.").	1	1
California Products, Inc. v. Puretex Lemon Juice, Inc.green tex · 1960 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984Cf., Mingus v. Wadley, supra; California Products, Inc. v. Puretex Lemon Juice, Inc., 160 Tex. 586 , 334 S.W.2d 780, 781-83 (1960). 1984Cf., Mingus v. Wadley, supra; California Products, Inc. v. Puretex Lemon Juice, Inc., 160 Tex. 586 , 334 S.W.2d 780, 781-83 (1960).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS v. Willis green tex · 1963 2 sentences 1993Texas Industrial Traffic League, et al., v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 633 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1982), citing Coffee v. Rice University, 403 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.1966); Sabine River Authority v. Willis, 369 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.1963). 1982Coffee v. Rice University, 403 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.1966); Sabine River Authority v. Willis, 369 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.1963). 1 A party’s lack of justiciable interest must be pointed out to the trial court (or the district court sitting as an appellate court) in a written plea in abatement, and a ruling thereon must be obtained or the matter is waived.	2	1982–1993
Coffee v. William Marsh Rice University green tex · 1966 2 sentences 1993Texas Industrial Traffic League, et al., v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 633 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1982), citing Coffee v. Rice University, 403 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.1966); Sabine River Authority v. Willis, 369 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.1963). 1982Coffee v. Rice University, 403 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.1966); Sabine River Authority v. Willis, 369 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.1963). 1 A party’s lack of justiciable interest must be pointed out to the trial court (or the district court sitting as an appellate court) in a written plea in abatement, and a ruling thereon must be obtained or the matter is waived.	2	1982–1993
Holland v. Taylor green tex · 1954 2 sentences 1982Holland v. Taylor, 153 Tex. 433 , 270 S.W.2d 219 (1954). 1982Holland v. Taylor, 153 Tex. 433 , 270 S.W.2d 219 (1954).	1	1982–1982
State v. Santana green tex · 1969 1 sentence 1970As this point on proper standard of proof in the present case is a matter of fundamental error, as it was held to be in State v. Santana, supra, we have no other alternative but to remand this case for a new trial.	1	1970–1970
McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters green tex · 1957 2 sentences 1961In McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters, 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W. 2d 265 , this Court held as a matter of fundamental error that the Court of Civil Appeals and this Court were without power to review an interlocutory order of a trial court m the absence of appropriate statutory provision. 1961In McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters, 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W. 2d 265 , this Court held as a matter of fundamental error that the Court of Civil Appeals and this Court were without power to review an interlocutory order of a trial court m the absence of appropriate statutory provision.	1	1961–1961
Burlington-Rock Island R. v. McCartney neutral texapp · 1932 1 sentence 1951Co. v. McCartney, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 837 , wás decided upon a matter of fundamental error prior to the adoption of the Rules of Civil'Procedure.	1	1951–1951
Rutledge v. State green · 1928 1 sentence 1928While the question presented is one that may be regarded as fundamental error, still we find it unnecessary to discuss it because the question is foreclosed and settled against appellants’ contention by decisions of both the Supreme Court and the Commission of Appeals, in the following cases: Rutledge v. State (Tex.) 7 S.W.(2d) 1071 ; Prudential Ins.	1	1928–1928
Strong v. Harwell neutral texapp · 1916 1 sentence 1917Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676 ; McCall v. Roemer, 186 S. W. 409 .	1	1917–1917
Pearce v. Supreme Lodge, Knights & Ladies of Honor neutral texapp · 1917 1 sentence 1917In the Dickey Case, the Supreme Court says: “The effect, therefore, of amended article 2061 is to require the taking' of a written bill of exception to the giving or refusing of a special instruction in order to have a revision of the court’s action on the appeal.” In Pierce v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 190 S. W. 1156 , the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals holds that article 1971 requiring objections to a charge to he presented before it is read to the jury, etc., and where the record fails to show that a peremptory instruction given was objected to, the appellate court will not review the correc	1	1917–1917
Gallagher v. Teuscher & Co. neutral texapp · 1916 1 sentence 1917Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676 ; McCall v. Roemer, 186 S. W. 409 .	1	1917–1917
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Moore neutral texapp · 1911 1 sentence 1915Co. v. Moore, 139 S. W. 608 , does not apply.	1	1915–1915
Hahl v. Kellogg neutral texapp · 1906 2 sentences 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S.W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S.W. 533 , 124 S.W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S.W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ. 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S. W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S. W. 533 , 124 S. W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S. W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ.	1	1913–1913
Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Kimball green · 1910 2 sentences 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S.W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S.W. 533 , 124 S.W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S.W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ. 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S.W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S.W. 533 , 124 S.W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S.W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ.	1	1913–1913
Wandry v. Williams green · 1910 2 sentences 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S.W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S.W. 533 , 124 S.W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S.W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ. 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S. W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S. W. 533 , 124 S. W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S. W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ.	1	1913–1913
Wilson v. Johnson green · 1900 2 sentences 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S.W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S.W. 533 , 124 S.W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S.W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ. 1913Wilson v. Johnson, 94 Tex. 272 , 60 S.W. 242 ; Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 94 , 122 S.W. 533 , 124 S.W. 85 ; Adams v. Faircloth, 97 S.W. 507 ; Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ.	1	1913–1913

Where else courts name it

FL 21 (1969–2018) TX 15 (1913–2014) NM 10 (1934–2019) AZ 9 (1966–2024) UT 2 (1984–1989)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check