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 2 courts 1972–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Paynegreen2 sentences2004So, as to that complaint, Vu did not satisfy the Payne requirement that a party A timely and plainly @ make the trial court aware of the complaint and obtain a ruling , see State Dept. of Highways v. Payne , 838 S.W.2d 235, 241 (Tex. 1992), and as a result, she did not preserve error on this point. 1997Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 241 (Tex.1992) (op. on reh’g) (noting that (1) test for determining if party has preserved error in jury charge should be whether party made trial court aware of complaint, and (2) jury charge rules should be applied to serve rather than defeat this principle); see also Matthiessen v. Schaefer, 900 S.W.2d 792, 797-98 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, writ denied) (applying Payne test). | 2 | 2 |
Matthiessen v. Schaefergreen2 sentences1997Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 241 (Tex.1992) (op. on reh’g) (noting that (1) test for determining if party has preserved error in jury charge should be whether party made trial court aware of complaint, and (2) jury charge rules should be applied to serve rather than defeat this principle); see also Matthiessen v. Schaefer, 900 S.W.2d 792, 797-98 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, writ denied) (applying Payne test). 1996See Matthiessen v. Schaefer, 900 S.W.2d 792, 797 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied). | 2 | 2 |
Pena v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Due Course of Law In Pena v. State , the court of criminal appeals held that Pena had failed to preserve his due course of law claim because, even though he invoked the Texas Due Course of Law provision, he at no time argued that the provision affords greater protection than the federal Due Process Clause. 285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Simpson , 119 S.W.3d at 272 ; Wood , 18 S.W.3d at 648 . | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2001Although some cases appear to have treated it as a cause of action, see Weaver v. Stewart, 825 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied), in his brief, Robbins concedes that he raised constructive trust “as additional remedies related to other causes of action.” Because we hold the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict on each of Robbins’s causes of action, we need not address issues related to the remedies he sought. 16 Robbins also contends that Payne’s motion should have been denied because it failed to state the specific grounds on which it was sou | 1 | 1 |
Dickson v. Silvagreen2 sentences1999Dickson v. Silva, 880 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). 1999Dickson v. Silva, 880 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc.green1 sentence1995Instead, Payne demands that we apply the rules “while they remain” despite the fact that the rules cannot always be reconciled with what the test “should be.” Id.; cf. Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 267 (Tex.1992) (three months after Payne , the supreme court decided another case involving the requirements for preserving error in the jury charge without any mention of the “Payne test”); Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, n.w.h.) (discussing difficulties in harmonizing Payne with the rules of civil procedure). | 1 | 1 |
Keetch v. Kroger Co.green1 sentence1995Instead, Payne demands that we apply the rules “while they remain” despite the fact that the rules cannot always be reconciled with what the test “should be.” Id.; cf. Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 267 (Tex.1992) (three months after Payne , the supreme court decided another case involving the requirements for preserving error in the jury charge without any mention of the “Payne test”); Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, n.w.h.) (discussing difficulties in harmonizing Payne with the rules of civil procedure). | 1 | 1 |
Borden, Inc. v. Riosgreen1 sentence1995See Borden, Inc. v. Rios, 850 S.W.2d 821 , 827 n. 3 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi), judgment set aside by agr. without reference to merits, 859 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Tex.1993) (citing language from Payne as requiring application of the rules along side any “Payne test” analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Borden, Inc. v. Riosgreen1 sentence1995See Borden, Inc. v. Rios, 850 S.W.2d 821 , 827 n. 3 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi), judgment set aside by agr. without reference to merits, 859 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Tex.1993) (citing language from Payne as requiring application of the rules along side any “Payne test” analysis). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Payne v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. 1997Id. at 652 . | 2 | 1997–2007 |
Wood v. State
green
1 sentence2010See Simpson , 119 S.W.3d at 272 ; Wood , 18 S.W.3d at 648 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Falk & Mayfield L.L.P. v. Molzan
green
1 sentence2001Furthermore, IAS contends that its “knowledge, information and belief . . . at the time of the Original Petition and at the time of the First Amended Petition were completely different which would necessitate different arguments and responses of both parties.” The essence of IAS’s issue is that, based on its knowledge, information, and belief at the time its original petition was filed, the critical allegation was “likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” See id. § 10.001(3). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Payne v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1995This court determined that Payne’s motion did not show a meritorious defense, declaring, “[t]he motion must allege facts which in law would constitute a defense to the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff....” Id. 1995This court determined that Payne's motion did not show a meritorious defense, declaring, "[t]he motion must allege facts which in law would constitute a defense to the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff...." Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Wilgus v. Bond
green
1 sentence1993Tex.R.Civ.P. 274; Wilgus, 730 S.W.2d at 672 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Sira & Payne, Inc. v. Wallace & Riddle
green
1 sentence1990Id. at 561 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Sira & Payne, Inc. v. Wallace & Riddle
neutral
2 sentences1972The court of civil appeals affirmed. 470 S.W.2d 793 . 1972The court of civil appeals affirmed. 470 S.W.2d 793 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.