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.
14 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Millardgreen2 sentences2015A counterclaim states a claim for affirmative relief if it alleges that the defendant has a cause of action independent of the plaintiff’s claim, on which the defendant could recover benefits, compensation, or relief, even if the plaintiff were to abandon or fail to establish his cause of action. 13 BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. 1990). 2011See Millard, 800 S.W.2d at 841 . | 2 | 5 |
in the Interest of O. R. M., Jr., M. M. and O. M., Childrengreen1 sentence2025In re E.O., 595 S.W.3d 858 , 865 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.) (citing In re O.R.M., 559 S.W.3d 738, 741 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Alden v. Mainegreen2 sentences2025See id. at 375 (“The United States In sum, of the three cases on which Reata grounded its Supreme Court has also recognized that suits for money analysis, the first did not even involve a counterclaim for damages against states ‘may threaten the financial integrity of the States' and that ‘at the time of the founding, many money, see Anderson, 62 S.W.2d at 110 , the second dealt of the States could have been forced into insolvency but primarily with sovereign immunity barring a counterclaim for their immunity from private suits for money damages.’ for money in the tax context, see Humble Oil, 2025See id. at 375 (“The United States In sum, of the three cases on which Reata grounded its Supreme Court has also recognized that suits for money analysis, the first did not even involve a counterclaim for damages against states ‘may threaten the financial integrity of the States' and that ‘at the time of the founding, many money, see Anderson, 62 S.W.2d at 110 , the second dealt of the States could have been forced into insolvency but primarily with sovereign immunity barring a counterclaim for their immunity from private suits for money damages.’ for money in the tax context, see Humble Oil, | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. State ex rel. Allredgreen1 sentence2025See id. at 375 (“The United States In sum, of the three cases on which Reata grounded its Supreme Court has also recognized that suits for money analysis, the first did not even involve a counterclaim for damages against states ‘may threaten the financial integrity of the States' and that ‘at the time of the founding, many money, see Anderson, 62 S.W.2d at 110 , the second dealt of the States could have been forced into insolvency but primarily with sovereign immunity barring a counterclaim for their immunity from private suits for money damages.’ for money in the tax context, see Humble Oil, | 1 | 1 |
Kinnear v. Texas Commission on Human Rights Ex Rel. Halegreen2 sentences2025See id. at 375 (“The United States In sum, of the three cases on which Reata grounded its Supreme Court has also recognized that suits for money analysis, the first did not even involve a counterclaim for damages against states ‘may threaten the financial integrity of the States' and that ‘at the time of the founding, many money, see Anderson, 62 S.W.2d at 110 , the second dealt of the States could have been forced into insolvency but primarily with sovereign immunity barring a counterclaim for their immunity from private suits for money damages.’ for money in the tax context, see Humble Oil, 2025Our purpose state in response to a failed enforcement action that did not in using the broader phrase was benign: avoiding repetition. even involve an offset, see Kinnear, 14 S.W.3d at 300 . | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Sefzikgreen1 sentence2018Thus, it argues, that counterclaim is barred because the UDJA does not waive sovereign immunity for a claim seeking “statutory interpretation.” See Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 622 (Tex. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rio Valley, LLC v. City of El Paso, El Paso Central Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board of El Paso County, Texas
green
2 sentences2017Rio Valley, LLC v. City of El Paso , 441 S.W.3d 482 , 487-88 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2014, no pet.). 2017Id. at 485 ; see also F-Star Socorro, L.P. v. El Paso Cent. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sanders v. Blockbuster, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015It has instructed that in determining whether a transaction Sanders v. Blockbuster, Inc., 127 S.W.3d at 386 . is within the purview of the rule, weight should be given to “such considerations as whether the facts are related [8] With regard to the Burris Tracks, both parties asserted in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form claims involving them in the Fort Worth case. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Marshall v. Marshall (In Re Marshall)
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 863 (citing exception to compulsory counterclaim rule that a party is not required to bring a counterclaim if that claim is the subject of a pending action elsewhere). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause
green
1 sentence2012Appellants do not cite, however, where they raised this counterclaim or defense below, and our review has not revealed any 11 Sellers’s alleged representations also encompassed the deed of trust and note which preexisted, and were incorporated into, the Extension and Modification. 12 In Cherokee Water, the court explained that there could be no mutual mistake where the document in question was drafted before any alleged agreement occurred because the mistake must be in the drafting of the agreement. 741 S.W.2d at 381 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Howell v. Mauzy
green
1 sentence2009Howell, 899 S.W.2d at 706 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Star-Tel, Inc. v. Nacogdoches Telecommunications, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Waiver Alternatively, Angelo, relying on Star-Tel, Inc. v. Nacogdoches Telecommunications, Inc., 755 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ), argues that SMN waived any complaint relating to the lack of statutory notice under the DTPA. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.