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 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mason v. Woodgreen2 sentences2009See Mason v. Wood , 282 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.); Leachman v. Dretke , 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); cf. Moreland v. Johnson , 95 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“A suit that is not timely filed pursuant to section 14.005(b) is barred and may be dismissed with prejudice.”). 2009See Mason v. Wood, 282 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); cf. Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“A suit that is not timely filed pursuant to section 14.005(b) is barred and may be dismissed with prejudice.”). | 2 | 2 |
Leachman v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2009See Mason v. Wood , 282 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.); Leachman v. Dretke , 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); cf. Moreland v. Johnson , 95 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“A suit that is not timely filed pursuant to section 14.005(b) is barred and may be dismissed with prejudice.”). 2009See Mason v. Wood, 282 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); cf. Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“A suit that is not timely filed pursuant to section 14.005(b) is barred and may be dismissed with prejudice.”). | 2 | 2 |
Moreland v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2009See Mason v. Wood , 282 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.); Leachman v. Dretke , 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); cf. Moreland v. Johnson , 95 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“A suit that is not timely filed pursuant to section 14.005(b) is barred and may be dismissed with prejudice.”). 2009See Mason v. Wood, 282 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); cf. Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“A suit that is not timely filed pursuant to section 14.005(b) is barred and may be dismissed with prejudice.”). | 2 | 2 |
Bowie Memorial Hospital v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2003Id. § 13.01(e)(3), ( l ), (r)(6); see Bowie Mem'l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52 ; Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878 . 2003Id. § 13.01(e)(3), (l), (r)(6); see Borne Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52; Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878 . | 2 | 2 |
Tawakkol v. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2025Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239 , 247 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Although a court may dismiss the claim, it should not do so without granting leave to amend, unless the defect is simply incurable or the plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity after being afforded repeated opportunities to do so.”); Warnock v. Pecos Co., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Because sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction, the claims barred by sovereign immunity can be dismissed only under Rule 12(b)(1) and not with prejudice.”) (emphasis added). 1 in these courts’ view, they were not “courts 2025Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239 , 247 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Although a court may dismiss the claim, it should not do so without granting leave to amend, unless the defect is simply incurable or the plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity after being afforded repeated opportunities to do so.”); Warnock v. Pecos Co., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Because sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction, the claims barred by sovereign immunity can be dismissed only under Rule 12(b)(1) and not with prejudice.”) (emphasis added). 1 in these courts’ view, they were not “courts | 1 | 1 |
Rodalton Hart v. Bayer Corporationgreen1 sentence2025Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239 , 247 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Although a court may dismiss the claim, it should not do so without granting leave to amend, unless the defect is simply incurable or the plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity after being afforded repeated opportunities to do so.”); Warnock v. Pecos Co., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Because sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction, the claims barred by sovereign immunity can be dismissed only under Rule 12(b)(1) and not with prejudice.”) (emphasis added). 1 in these courts’ view, they were not “courts | 1 | 1 |
cluster 9535green1 sentence2025Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239 , 247 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Although a court may dismiss the claim, it should not do so without granting leave to amend, unless the defect is simply incurable or the plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity after being afforded repeated opportunities to do so.”); Warnock v. Pecos Co., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Because sovereign immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction, the claims barred by sovereign immunity can be dismissed only under Rule 12(b)(1) and not with prejudice.”) (emphasis added). 1 in these courts’ view, they were not “courts | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Divisiongreen1 sentence2020Obadele, 60 S.W.3d at 348 ; Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice—Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Lynaughgreen1 sentence2013See Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796 S.W.2d 705, 706-07 (Tex. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Gallaghergreen1 sentence2009Scott v. Gallagher, 209 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (quoting TEX. | 1 | 1 |
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.red1 sentence2006Additionally, the judgment plainly indicates the trial court intended to dispose of all parties and all issues and be a "final judgment." See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.green1 sentence2001Co., 985 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1999, no pet.). [4] A court may dismiss a claim without allowing the opportunity to amend if it can determine that no claim within the court's jurisdiction can be stated consistent with the facts alleged. | 1 | 1 |
City of Saginaw v. Cartergreen2 sentences2001City of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. filed); Ramirez v. Lyford Consol. 2001City of Saginaw v. Carter, 996 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. filed); Ramirez v. Lyford Consol. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palacios
green
2 sentences2003Id. § 13.01(e)(3), ( l ), (r)(6); see Bowie Mem'l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52 ; Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878 . 2003Id. § 13.01(e)(3), (l), (r)(6); see Borne Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52; Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Lord v. Souder
green
1 sentence2021Instead, when a motion to dismiss relies upon affirmative defenses, such as waiver and release, “the Court may dismiss a claim if the plaintiff includes in its pleadings facts that incontrovertibly constitute an affirmative defense to a claim.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Obadele v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2020Obadele, 60 S.W.3d at 348 ; Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice—Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2013App. P. 38.1(i); Fredonia State Bank, 881 S.W.2d at 284 . 17 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Onnette v. Reed
green
1 sentence2006Code Ann. § 14.003 (a) (Vernon 2002), under which the trial court dismissed Houser's claims, provides that a court may dismiss a claim "either before or after service of process." See also Onnette v. Reed , 832 S.W.2d 450 , 451 n.2 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Thomas v. Bilby
green
1 sentence2002Code Ann . ' 14.003(a) ( A court may dismiss a claim, either before or after service of process @ ); Bilby , 40 S.W.3d at 168 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Kendrick v. Lynaugh
green
2 sentences2001"Accordingly, the trial court is under no duty to suggest voluntarily that the appellant amend his pleadings." Id. [3] Our unpublished opinion is White v. Johnson, No. 09-99-387-CV, 2000 WL 300519 (March 23, 2000, no pet.). [1] One against Sally Carrier alleging filming in the nude; one against Lloyd Davis and Michael Prevost for excessive use of force; and one against Anthony Lawrie and J. 2001"Accordingly, the trial court is under no duty to suggest voluntarily that the appellant amend his pleadings.” Id. . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.