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 1857–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Producing Properties, Inc. v. Sohio Petroleum Co.green2 sentences1990See Producing Properties, Inc. v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 428 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex. Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ). 1989Producing Properties, Inc. v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 428 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex. Civ.App.-Dallas, 1968, no writ). | 2 | 3 |
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company v. Federal Power Commissiongreen1 sentence2015However, in exercising this discretion, an agency receives guidance from the policies that underlie the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III.”); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 606 F.2d 1373, 1380 (D.C.Cir.1979) (“The limitations imposed by Article III on what matters federal courts may hear affect administrative agencies only indirectly.”). 2 At oral argument, we asked counsel for JSI whether he was aware of a decision which had considered a money claim to have become moot as a result of the defendant’s own acts. | 1 | 1 |
Reef v. Mills Novelty Co.green2 sentences1989Reef v. Mills Novelty Co., 126 Tex. 380 , 89 S.W.2d 210, 211 (1936). 1989Reef v. Mills Novelty Co., 126 Tex. 380 , 89 S.W.2d 210, 211 (1936). | 1 | 1 |
Ablowich v. Greenville Natl. Bank.green2 sentences1924See, also, Ablowich v. Greenville National Bank, 95 Tex. 429 , 67 S. W. 79, 881 . 1924See, also, Ablowich v. Greenville National Bank, 95 Tex. 429 , 67 S. W. 79, 881 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DiGiuseppe v. Lawler
green
1 sentence2023Cf DiGiuseppe v. Lawler, 269 S.W.3d 588 , 597– 98 (Tex. 2008) (holding contract allowing party to “seek to enforce” specific performance did not impose specific performance automatically upon default but required party to establish the legal elements of specific performance before the remedy would be imposed). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Jensen Construction Co. v. Dallas County
green
2 sentences2002We disapprove of Jensen Construction Co. v. Dallas County, 920 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.App.Dallas 1996, writ denied), to the extent that it holds otherwise. 2002We disapprove of Jensen Construction Co. v. Dallas County, 920 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996, writ denied), to the extent that it holds otherwise. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Price v. Steves
neutral
1 sentence1968Price v. Steves, 175 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1943, writ ref’d w. o. m.). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Schlittler v. Smith
green
1 sentence1966Graham v. Jackson (Tex.Civ.App.) 189 S.W. 551 . “ ‘Where there are two claimants for the same money and one of them is recognized as being entitled to it by the person from whom it is due and is paid, the other cannot sue him to recover the money for the reason that having received the money under a claim of right in himself, the law will not imply any contract or promise by him to hold the money for the use of the other claimant or to pay it over to him and therefore, there is not, under the circumstances, any privity of contract on which to found the action/ 41 C.J. 41.” Appellant relies upo | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Morriss v. First Nat. Bank of Mission
green
1 sentence1966Bank of Mission, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W.2d 269 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Schlittler v. Smith
green
1 sentence1966Graham v. Jackson (Tex.Civ.App.) 189 S.W. 551 . “ ‘Where there are two claimants for the same money and one of them is recognized as being entitled to it by the person from whom it is due and is paid, the other cannot sue him to recover the money for the reason that having received the money under a claim of right in himself, the law will not imply any contract or promise by him to hold the money for the use of the other claimant or to pay it over to him and therefore, there is not, under the circumstances, any privity of contract on which to found the action/ 41 C.J. 41.” Appellant relies upo | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Graham v. Jackson
neutral
1 sentence1966Graham v. Jackson (Tex.Civ.App.) 189 S.W. 551 . “ ‘Where there are two claimants for the same money and one of them is recognized as being entitled to it by the person from whom it is due and is paid, the other cannot sue him to recover the money for the reason that having received the money under a claim of right in himself, the law will not imply any contract or promise by him to hold the money for the use of the other claimant or to pay it over to him and therefore, there is not, under the circumstances, any privity of contract on which to found the action/ 41 C.J. 41.” Appellant relies upo | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Coleman v. First National Bank
neutral
1 sentence1933"In that case the bank applied the money to its claim against Dye (the trustee), and it was upon that ground that the liability was at last rested," and again "in attempting to acquire such a right or benefit the bank becomes a party to the action of the trustee, and stands as any other person dealing with one holding property in a fiduciary capacity." And in Coleman v. Bank, 94 Tex. 608 , 63 S.W. 867 , 869 , 86 Am.St.Rep. 871 : "The principle does not allow the bank * * * to apply the (trust) fund to the individual debt due to it from the trustee." This same rule was said to require inquiry b | 1 | 1933–1933 |
George v. Ryon, Administratrix
neutral
2 sentences1929Ryon, 94 Tex. 317 , 60 S. W. 427 ) are to the effect that, where the administrator rejects a claim, the district court acquires jurisdiction, not alone over the money claim, but also over the lien given to secure it. 1929Ryon, 94 Tex. 317 , 60 S. W. 427 ) are to the effect that, where the administrator rejects a claim, the district court acquires jurisdiction, not alone over the money claim, but also over the lien given to secure it. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Sudduth v. Dubose
green
1 sentence1924App. 226 , 93 S. W. 235 , where the amount sought to be recovered was below the jurisdiction of the district court, held that, where the foreclosure of a lien which was unenforceable was sought, the district court retained jurisdiction to ren.der a personal judgment for the money claim, notwithstanding the trial court refused to foreclose the lien. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Prunty
green
1 sentence1922Co. v. Prunty (Tex. Sup.) 230 S. W. 396 ; Sabine Land & Improvement Co. v. Perry (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Jenkins v. Cain
green
1 sentence1900Fo reference was made to the case of Jenkins v. Cain, supra. In this decision the court seems to have given a controlling effect to the language of the statute authorizing suits against an administrator only when a claim for money against an estate has been rejected. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Frazier v. Erie Bank
neutral
1 sentence1857The case of Frazier v. The Erie Bank, ( 8 Watts & Serg. 18 ,) was not so strong a case for the plaintiffs as this ; for in that case the Bank had no notice of the ownership of the draft when they gave the credit. | 1 | 1857–1857 |
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.