15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Methodist Hospitalgreen2 sentences2021The purpose of the pre-suit notice requirement, including the authorized release of health information, “is to encourage negotiations and settlement of disputes prior to suit, thereby reducing litigation costs.” Carreras, 339 S.W.3d at 73 ; see Mitchell v. Methodist Hosp., 376 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). 2020The purpose of the pre-suit notice requirement, including the authorized release of health information, “is to encourage negotiations and settlement of disputes prior to suit, thereby reducing litigation costs.” Carreras, 339 S.W.3d at 73 ; see also Mitchell v. Methodist Hosp., 376 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Belen Gonzales v. Mathis Independent Schoolgreen1 sentence2023See id. § 110.006 (emphasis added) (“[A] claimant may, within the 60-day period . . . bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief . . . .”); see also Gonzales, 978 F.3d at 297 (holding one plaintiff’s failure to comply with the TRFRA’s pre-suit notice requirement mandated the court vacate the preliminary injunction as to him but not as to the other plaintiff who gave pre-suit notice and filed suit within the 60-day waiting period). | 1 | 1 |
City of DeSoto v. Whitegreen1 sentence2015The Texas Supreme 42 Court stated that curing the notice requirement allows the City to assure “appellate rights without dismissing a case against a potentially unfit officer... .” White, 288 S.W.3d at 399 (analyzing the pre-suit notice requirement for civil service employees). | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Plano Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2014Code Ann. § 110.006 (a) (West 2011); see also Morgan v. Plano ISD, 724 F.3d 579, 586 (5th Cir.2013) (concluding that the Texas RFRA’s pre-suit notice requirement is jurisdictional). | 1 | 1 |
HOUSING AUTH. CITY OF BEAUMONT v. Landriogreen1 sentence2013Housing Auth. of City of Beaumont v. Landrio, 269 S.W.3d 735, 741-42 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Colquitt v. Brazoria Countygreen2 sentences2012Id. at 365 ; see Colquitt v. Brazoria Cnty., 324 S.W.3d 539, 542 (Tex.2010). 2012Id. at 365 ; see Colquitt v. Brazoria Cnty, 324 S.W.3d 539, 542 (Tex. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Sandersgreen1 sentence2011Bailey v. Sanders, 261 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008). | 1 | 1 |
City of Houston v. Torresgreen1 sentence2010But when as here the lawsuit is filed a mere 55 days after the incident, imposing a pre-suit notice requirement is contrary to the text of section 101.101, which aims “to ensure a prompt reporting of claims to enable the [government] to investigate while facts are fresh and conditions remain substantially the same.” City of Houston v. Torres, 621 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tex.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Hines v. Hashgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 469-70 (Tex.1992) (holding that defendant had waived pre-suit notice requirement under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act by failing to request *398 an abatement). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Simonsgreen1 sentence2007See Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Simons , 140 S.W.3d 338, 348 (Tex. 2004); see also Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Kimball v. Brothersgreen1 sentence2000See Kimball v. Brothers, M.D., 741 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jose Carreras, M.D., P.A. v. Marroquin
green
2 sentences2021The purpose of the pre-suit notice requirement, including the authorized release of health information, “is to encourage negotiations and settlement of disputes prior to suit, thereby reducing litigation costs.” Carreras, 339 S.W.3d at 73 ; see Mitchell v. Methodist Hosp., 376 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). 2020The purpose of the pre-suit notice requirement, including the authorized release of health information, “is to encourage negotiations and settlement of disputes prior to suit, thereby reducing litigation costs.” Carreras, 339 S.W.3d at 73 ; see also Mitchell v. Methodist Hosp., 376 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Davenport v. Adu-Lartey
green
1 sentence2021As a result, Taylor failed to substantially comply with the TMLA’s pre-suit notice requirement and tolling provision. 5 See Davenport, 526 S.W.3d at 553–54; see also Polsky, 2020 WL 6052547 , at *4. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Martinez Ex Rel. Martinez v. Val Verde County Hospital District
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 483 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
America Online, Inc. v. Williams
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Barr v. City of Sinton
green
1 sentence2015Pipeline Corp., 93 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (allowing a landowner’s trespass to title claim against a condemnor in district court and holding that “the Harris County Civil Courts at Law have jurisdiction, but not exclusive jurisdiction, over a landowner’s claim . . . when those claims are inherently intertwined in an eminent domain proceeding”); county court jurisdiction had not attached because HHA had not served Latter Day with the condemnation action at the time HHA filed its RFRA suit in district court (indeed, it was not served until October 2, 2015); the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Taub v. Aquila Southwest Pipeline Corp.
green
1 sentence2015Pipeline Corp., 93 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (allowing a landowner’s trespass to title claim against a condemnor in district court and holding that “the Harris County Civil Courts at Law have jurisdiction, but not exclusive jurisdiction, over a landowner’s claim . . . when those claims are inherently intertwined in an eminent domain proceeding”); county court jurisdiction had not attached because HHA had not served Latter Day with the condemnation action at the time HHA filed its RFRA suit in district court (indeed, it was not served until October 2, 2015); the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Loutzenhiser
red
2 sentences2012Id. at 365 ; see Colquitt v. Brazoria Cnty., 324 S.W.3d 539, 542 (Tex.2010). 2012Id. at 365 ; see Colquitt v. Brazoria Cnty, 324 S.W.3d 539, 542 (Tex. 2010). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.