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 1874–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Del Carmen Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Our conclusion is consistent with the holding in Hernandez v. State , 273 S.W.3d 685, 688-89 (Tex. Crim. 2009Our conclusion is consistent with the holding in Hernandez v. State, 273 S.W.3d 685, 688-89 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
TEXAS THOROUGHBRED BREEDERS ASSOCIATION v. Donnangreen1 sentence2016See 12 Whitmire v. Nat’l Cutting Horse Ass’n, No. 02-08-00176-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5712 , at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 23, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that appellate complaints concerning declaratory relief, breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in case involving membership suspension were “exactly the type of complaints in which Texas courts have declined to intervene”); Donnan, 202 S.W.3d at 225 (concluding that “this case [involving injunctive relief, libel, slander, and negligence in horse accreditation dispute] is exactly the type of internal di | 1 | 1 |
Lang v. Capital Resource Investments, I & II, LLCgreen1 sentence2014Compare Dawson-Austin, 968 S.W.2d at 323 (noting that party challenging personal jurisdiction did not herself raise any of the matters at the hearing but rather “reurged [her] motion for continuance throughout the hearing”) and Lang, 102 S.W.3d at 865 (“[Defendant] did not participate in the hearing on the motion for new trial and objected to the trial court’s decision to proceed on the motion for new trial prior to ruling on the *613 special appearance”) with Landry v. Daigrepont, 35 S.W.3d 265, 268 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (“Even though [defendant] acknowledged that the specia | 1 | 1 |
Landry v. Daigrepontgreen1 sentence2014Compare Dawson-Austin, 968 S.W.2d at 323 (noting that party challenging personal jurisdiction did not herself raise any of the matters at the hearing but rather “reurged [her] motion for continuance throughout the hearing”) and Lang, 102 S.W.3d at 865 (“[Defendant] did not participate in the hearing on the motion for new trial and objected to the trial court’s decision to proceed on the motion for new trial prior to ruling on the *613 special appearance”) with Landry v. Daigrepont, 35 S.W.3d 265, 268 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (“Even though [defendant] acknowledged that the specia | 1 | 1 |
Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middletongreen1 sentence2014Other than strictly following the procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction in Rule 120a, a “non-resident defendant [has] only two options: he [can] either appear and consent to jurisdiction or allow a default judgment to be taken against him and attack the Texas judgment as being void if the plaintiff brought suit in the defendant’s state to enforce the judgment.” Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009Appellant contends that this summary is an out-of-court testimonial statement offered to prove the truth of the matters stated in violation of Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004). (1) The State urges that appellant did not preserve this contention for appeal. 2009Appellant contends that this summary is an out-of-court testimonial statement offered to prove the truth of the matters stated in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).1 The State urges that appellant did not preserve this contention for appeal. | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. v. Shelby Alan Freeman
green
2 sentences2014No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Venture Cotton Co-op. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222 (2014) 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 730 When authority over the matters of waiver, illegality, remedies, and attorney fees is unclear, Opinion a strong federal presumption favors arbitration. 2014No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Venture Cotton Co-op. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222 (2014) 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 730 When authority over the matters of waiver, illegality, remedies, and attorney fees is unclear, Opinion a strong federal presumption favors arbitration. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Latham v. Houston Land & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1943Kveton v. Keding, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 673 (error dis.) ; Askins, Inc., v. Sparks, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 279 (error ref.) ; Latham v. Houston Land & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 519 (error dis.) ; Pitts v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 368 (error dis.). | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Kveton v. Keding
green
1 sentence1943Kveton v. Keding, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 673 (error dis.) ; Askins, Inc., v. Sparks, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 279 (error ref.) ; Latham v. Houston Land & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 519 (error dis.) ; Pitts v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 368 (error dis.). | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Pitts v. Thompson
neutral
1 sentence1943Kveton v. Keding, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 673 (error dis.) ; Askins, Inc., v. Sparks, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 279 (error ref.) ; Latham v. Houston Land & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 519 (error dis.) ; Pitts v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 368 (error dis.). | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Askins, Inc. v. Sparks
neutral
1 sentence1943Kveton v. Keding, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 673 (error dis.) ; Askins, Inc., v. Sparks, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 279 (error ref.) ; Latham v. Houston Land & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 519 (error dis.) ; Pitts v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 368 (error dis.). | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Matthews
green
2 sentences1939Co. v. Matthews, 100 Tex. 63, 71 , 93 S.W. 1068 ; Bradley v. T. & P. Ry. 1939Co. v. Matthews, 100 Tex. 63, 71 , 93 S.W. 1068 ; Bradley v. T. & P. Ry. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Gussie Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co.
green
2 sentences1931Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461 , 240 S. W. 517 ; Colorado & S. Ry. 1931Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461 , 240 S. W. 517 ; Colorado & S. Ry. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
James v. State
green
1 sentence1914James v. State, 63 Texas Crim. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Freeman v. McAninch
green
1 sentence1898In Freeman v. McAninch, 87 Texas, 132 , it is held that a judgment *272 is conclusive of all the matters of defense which could have been urged to defeat the relief asked by the plaintiff. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
York v. McNutt
green
1 sentence1874It is true that it has been often said by this court that “objections that go to the foundation of the action will be considered, though not specially assigned as error.” (Rankert v. Clow, 16 Texas, 13 ; Hollingsworth v. Holshousen, 17 Texas, 47 .) There is much difficulty in making this exception to the- rule laid down in the statute, unless it be in a very plain case, where the matters of error are so obvious and so flagrant as that the court would be doing a sort of injustice to sanction the manifestly erroneous judgment rendered in the court below. | 1 | 1874–1874 |
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.