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 1915–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burford v. Poundersgreen2 sentences2018Saenz v. Martinez , 04-07-00339-CV, 2008 WL 4809217 , at *6 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (citing *158 Burford v. Pounders , 145 Tex. 460 , 199 S.W.3d 141 , 144-45 (1947) ). 2010Burford v. Pounders, 145 Tex. 460, 465-67 , 199 S.W.2d 141, 144-45 (Tex. 1947). | 4 | 5 |
Adams v. Cannangreen1 sentence2017See Adams v. Cannan, 253 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
In Re VLKgreen1 sentence2013See In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d at 341 (“The trial court has considerable discretion to determine necessary and proper jury instructions.”). c) Additional Requested Instructions Appellants also challenge the trial court’s refusal to include the following instructions requested by Emerson with the question whether one or both parties failed to comply with the subcontract: • In answering these questions, you are instructed that Emerson Construction’s 72-hour notice letter to Ranger Fire, dated December 27, 2004, became effective as to the contents thereof three days after it was sent by Emerson Cons | 1 | 1 |
Haynes v. Dunngreen1 sentence1991The court of appeals relied on Haynes v. Dunn, 518 S.W.2d 880, 885-86 (Tex.Civ.App.— Waco 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), in which a court of appeals applied the repudiation doctrine, citing Kidd , even though the grantor’s possession commenced after his execution of the deed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ridge Oil Co., Inc. v. Guinn Investments, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015And it cites Ridge Oil, 148 S.W.3d at 157 , and other cases referring to the repudiation doctrine. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kothmann v. Boley
green
1 sentence2014Id. (emphases added). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Paris and Kevin Carruth v. Ranger Abbott
green
1 sentence2014As we stated in our previous opinion, "It is critical ... that the plaintiff allege he is being treated differently from those whose situation is directly comparable in all material respects.” Abbott, 360 S.W.3d at 583 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Cheyenne Resources, Inc. v. Criswell
green
1 sentence1993Cheyenne Resources, Inc. v. Criswell, supra. We have previously held that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that the leases terminated under their own terms 60 days after May 20, 1988, and September 14, 1989. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Atlantic Richfield Company v. Hilton
green
1 sentence1984Appellees contend that Atlantic Rich-field Company v. Hilton, supra stands for the proposition that operations on pooled acreage by a lessee will preclude the application of the doctrine of repudiation as to nonpooled acreage. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Robles v. Robles
neutral
1 sentence1916That identical question was passed upon by this .court in Robles v. Robles, 154 S. W. 230 , where it was held that the execution of a deed by a tenant, in common, and its registration by the grantee, who took open and adverse possession thereunder, and paid the taxes, was notice to the other cotenant of the assertion of an adverse claim. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Sullivan v. Fant
green
2 sentences1915A. (N. S.) 103, by the Supreme Court, as a repudiation of the doctrine in Sullivan v. Fant, 51 Tex. Civ. 1915App. 6 , 110 S. W. 507 , contended for by appellee, that if error has been committed in admitting testimony, the objector has waived the same by requiring the witness to repeat the same testimony on cross-examination. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.