14 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Truly v. Austingreen2 sentences2014Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 685 (Tex.2000) (requiring a party opposing claim for unjust enrichment to secure findings "that an express contract exists that covers the subject matter of the dispute”) (citing Freeman v. Carroll, 499 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.)); Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex.1988) (discussing the general rule that one may recover in quantum meruit only when there is no express contract). . 2014App.—Tyler 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.)); Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988) (discussing the general rule that one may recover in quantum meruit only when there is no express contract). 10 Gotham’s live pleading omitted its claim for contractual subrogation, but this does not negate the fact that the contract addresses the issue and bars Gotham from pursuing an equitable subrogation claim. 8 and Gotham is limited to the contract rather than equity when determining liability.11 See id. at 648–49. | 2 | 2 |
Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.green2 sentences2014Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 685 (Tex.2000) (requiring a party opposing claim for unjust enrichment to secure findings "that an express contract exists that covers the subject matter of the dispute”) (citing Freeman v. Carroll, 499 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.)); Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex.1988) (discussing the general rule that one may recover in quantum meruit only when there is no express contract). . 2014Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 685 (Tex. 2000) (requiring a party opposing claim for unjust enrichment to secure findings “that an express contract exists that covers the subject matter of the dispute” (citing Freeman v. Carroll, 499 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 2 |
Garza v. Alviargreen2 sentences2003Garza v. Alviar , 395 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. 1965). 2001See Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex.1965). | 2 | 2 |
McCann v. McCanngreen1 sentence2024CODE § 3.003(b); see also McCann v. McCann, 22 S.W.3d 21, 23 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (“If this presumption is not rebutted by the party opposing the claim for reimbursement, all expenditures will be presumed community expenditures.”); TEX. | 1 | 1 |
John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Dewhurstgreen1 sentence2013See John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Mem’l Found., 90 S.W.3d at 288 . .The Restatement observes that the burden of establishing a change in facts sufficient to undermine a preclusion defense should fall on the party opposing the defense, at least in some cases. | 1 | 1 |
Corea v. Bilekgreen2 sentences2013See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt. c & illus. 7; see also Corea, 362 S.W.3d at 826 (placing burden on party opposing preclusion). 2013See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt. c & illus. 7; see also Corea, 362 S.W.3d at 826 (placing burden on party opposing preclusion). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Freeman v. Carroll
green
2 sentences2014Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 685 (Tex.2000) (requiring a party opposing claim for unjust enrichment to secure findings "that an express contract exists that covers the subject matter of the dispute”) (citing Freeman v. Carroll, 499 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.)); Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex.1988) (discussing the general rule that one may recover in quantum meruit only when there is no express contract). . 2014Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 685 (Tex. 2000) (requiring a party opposing claim for unjust enrichment to secure findings “that an express contract exists that covers the subject matter of the dispute” (citing Freeman v. Carroll, 499 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
In Re AIU Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2005Id. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Cook v. Hibernia National Bank
neutral
2 sentences2003Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2002), writ denied , 817 So.2d 98 (La. 2002), the court upheld the trial court’s strike of a jury request where the parties had clearly and specifically waived a jury trial in their contract, and the party opposing the waiver was an experienced businesswoman. 2003Mar.15, 2002), writ denied, 817 So.2d 98 (La.2002), the court upheld the trial court’s strike of a jury request where the parties had clearly and specifically waived a jury trial in their contract, and the party opposing the waiver was an experienced businesswoman. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Panditi v. Apostle
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Republic Insurance v. Paico Receivables, LLC
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Bank of America, N.A.
green
1 sentence2011Id. ; see In re Gen. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Davis v. Burnam
green
1 sentence2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.