15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Unifund CCR Partners v. Weavergreen2 sentences2023However, the supreme court has emphasized “the equitable principles allowing these arguments to be raised in a motion for new trial do not apply if a party realizes its mistake before judgment and has other avenues of relief available.” Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442 (citing Carpenter, 98 S.W.3d at 686 ); see also Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. 2008) (“Weaver knew of his mistake before judgment and could have responded to Unifund’s motion, but because he did not, he waived his right to raise the issue thereafter.”); Viesca v. Andrews, No. 01-13-00659-CV, 2014 WL 4260355 2011In explaining their holding, the supreme court pointed out that “Unifund’s motion for summary judgment put [Weaver] on notice of the deficiency of his response: that Unifund never received the response because Weaver had not served, or attempted to serve, the response on Unifund.” Id. | 2 | 6 |
Howeth Investments, Inc. v. City of Hedwig Villagegreen2 sentences2010See Howeth Investments, Inc. , 259 S.W.3d at 889–90 (overruling appellate issue because unchallenged findings of fact supported trial court’s conclusions of law and judgment). 2. 2010See Howeth Investments, Inc., 259 S.W.3d at 889-90 (overruling appellate issue because unchallenged findings of fact supported trial court’s conclusions of law and judgment). 2. | 2 | 2 |
Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napiergreen1 sentence2011See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.1970), where the court concluded that a point of error stating generally that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment authorizes review of all possible grounds of trial court error in granting the summary judgment. 2 . | 1 | 1 |
Crites v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2009See id. (noting it was instructive in determining whether the dismissal oi'der was final that the trial court held a hearing on the sanctions motion thirty-six days after signing the order). | 1 | 1 |
Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. Schexnidergreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Scott & White Mem’l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594 , 596 n. 2 (Tex.1996) (stating that a court cannot issue an order of sanctions after its plenary power has expired). | 1 | 1 |
Mathis v. Lockwoodgreen1 sentence2008See Mathis, 166 S.W.3d at 744 — 46 (discussing standard for granting a new trial); Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 684-85 (Tex. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Stoner v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2008See Mathis, 166 S.W.3d at 744 — 46 (discussing standard for granting a new trial); Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 684-85 (Tex. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wheeler v. Green
green
2 sentences2023However, the supreme court has emphasized “the equitable principles allowing these arguments to be raised in a motion for new trial do not apply if a party realizes its mistake before judgment and has other avenues of relief available.” Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442 (citing Carpenter, 98 S.W.3d at 686 ); see also Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. 2008) (“Weaver knew of his mistake before judgment and could have responded to Unifund’s motion, but because he did not, he waived his right to raise the issue thereafter.”); Viesca v. Andrews, No. 01-13-00659-CV, 2014 WL 4260355 2010We believe, however, that the present case is similar to Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442 . | 4 | 2010–2023 |
Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa
green
2 sentences2024It explained that “the sanctions were not based on Unifund’s violation of the bankruptcy order” but rather “Villa’s motion and the trial court’s sanctions order were based on chapter 10 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Unifund’s failure to make reasonable inquiry after it had knowledge of Villa’s bankruptcy discharge.” Id. at 95 . 2015As the Court noted, “[W]e address Unifund's claim that the sanctions order is void because the trial court's plenary power expired before it signed the order nine months after the order dismissing Unifund's suit.” Id. at 95 . | 2 | 2015–2024 |
Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp.
green
1 sentence2023However, the supreme court has emphasized “the equitable principles allowing these arguments to be raised in a motion for new trial do not apply if a party realizes its mistake before judgment and has other avenues of relief available.” Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442 (citing Carpenter, 98 S.W.3d at 686 ); see also Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. 2008) (“Weaver knew of his mistake before judgment and could have responded to Unifund’s motion, but because he did not, he waived his right to raise the issue thereafter.”); Viesca v. Andrews, No. 01-13-00659-CV, 2014 WL 4260355 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
James Cleveland v. Rob Taylor
green
1 sentence2023However, the supreme court has emphasized “the equitable principles allowing these arguments to be raised in a motion for new trial do not apply if a party realizes its mistake before judgment and has other avenues of relief available.” Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442 (citing Carpenter, 98 S.W.3d at 686 ); see also Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. 2008) (“Weaver knew of his mistake before judgment and could have responded to Unifund’s motion, but because he did not, he waived his right to raise the issue thereafter.”); Viesca v. Andrews, No. 01-13-00659-CV, 2014 WL 4260355 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 798 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Citibank
green
1 sentence2012The Williams court treated Unifund's claim as one for breach of contract and, because the lawsuit was filed within four years of the last payment, the court concluded Unifund’s claim was timely. 264 S.W.3d at 234 . | 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.