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 2 courts 1997–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heinegreen2 sentences2011See Holt Atherton, 835 S.W.2d at 83 . 2011See Holt Atherton, 835 S.W.2d at 83 . | 3 | 3 |
Talley v. Howsleygreen2 sentences2011Talley v. Howsley, 142 Tex. 81, 86 , 176 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.1943). 2011Talley v. Howsley, 142 Tex. 81, 86 , 176 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.1943). | 2 | 2 |
Tucker v. Tuckergreen2 sentences2010See Tucker v. Tucker , 908 S.W.2d 530, 532 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1995, writ denied). 2010See Tucker v. Tucker, 908 S.W.2d 530, 532 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied). | 2 | 2 |
Hjalmarson v. Langleygreen1 sentence2025On May 6, 2025, Michael filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court asking us to compel the trial court to hold a hearing on his most recent motion for new trial and to “vacate the… Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, as required by law.” 3 Michael argues that “the trial court abused its discretion in signing the… Judgment nunc pro tunc on March 4, 2025 being it may have been outside the court[’]s jurisdiction which would void anything[.]”2 Jurisdiction “A court must have jurisdiction to act or its acts are void.” Hjalmarson v. Langley, 840 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992, orig. procee | 1 | 1 |
Madeksho v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols & Friendgreen1 sentence2022See Madeksho, 57 S.W.3d at 453 . | 1 | 1 |
Rahul K. Nath, M.D. v. Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicinegreen1 sentence2021See Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., 576 S.W.3d 707 , 709–10 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam) (“Although this case deals with attorney’s fees awarded through a sanctions order, the distinction is immaterial because all fee- shifting situations require reasonableness.”). 17 Michael’s motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
Austin Nursing Center, Inc. v. Lovatogreen1 sentence2019See Lovato, 171 S.W.3d at 853 ; see also Gomez, 2006 WL 733957 , at *2. | 1 | 1 |
Dusti Kenne Lee v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Lee v. State, 415 S.W.3d 915, 926 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2013, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kelsogreen1 sentence2015See In re Michael's motion to reinstate the case on the docket and Kelso, 266 S.W.3d 586, 590-91 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth signed an order of reinstatement on March 6, 2007, which 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
In Re ADAgreen1 sentence2010“It is not the proper role of this Court to create arguments for an appellant— we will not do the job of the advocate.” In re A.D.A., 287 S.W.3d 382, 390 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (rejecting appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to inadequate briefing). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Talley v. Howsley
green
2 sentences2011Talley v. Howsley, 142 Tex. 81, 86 , 176 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.1943). 2011Talley v. Howsley, 142 Tex. 81, 86 , 176 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.1943). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Michael O. Pickens v. Elizabeth Cordia
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re MRJM
green
1 sentence2009I, 193 S.W.3d at 674–76. 5 … Our September 9 order acknowledged that Michael’s issue challenging the constitutionality of section 263.405(i) was not frivolous and effectively mooted Michael’s complaint about section 13.003(b) of the civil practice and remedies code being used as the trial court’s standard for determining whether his appeal was frivolous. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp.
green
2 sentences1997Applying these principles to Michael’s claim of res judicata, we find that it fails because John was not a party to the prior divorce case, nor was he in privity with Diane, who was a party to the divorce case and to the agreement. 4 See id. 1997Applying these principles to Michael's claim of res judicata, we find that it fails because John was not a party to the prior divorce case, nor was he in privity with Diane, who was a party to the divorce case and to the agreement. [4] See id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.