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 3 courts 1958–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pinnacle Premier Properties, Inc. and Pinnacle Realty Advisors, Inc v. Ghislain Breton, Catherine Denicourt and David Andreisgreen2 sentences2020See Pinnacle Premier Props., Inc. v. Breton, 447 S.W.3d 558 , 562 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). 6 from refusing to accept or rejecting applications for nomination from third-party candidates on the grounds that the applicant did not pay a filing fee or submit a petition in lieu thereof at the time of filing or at any other time. * * * The Court ORDERS that Defendant Hughs is temporarily enjoined from refusing to certify third-party nominees for the general-election ballot on the grounds that the nominee did not pay a filing fee or submit a petition in lieu thereof at the 2020See Pinnacle Premier Props., Inc. v. Breton, 447 S.W.3d 558 , 562 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). 6 from refusing to certify third-party nominees for the general-election ballot on the grounds that the nominee did not pay a filing fee or submit a petition in lieu thereof at the time of filing or at any other time. (emphases in original). | 4 | 4 |
Kentucky v. Kinggreen2 sentences2023See King, 563 U.S. at 469 (“For these reasons, we conclude that the exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.”). 2020Cf. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 469 (2011) (noting “that the exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment”). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Texas Pet Foods, Inc.green2 sentences2021Given our standard of review and the adverse implied findings supporting the district court’s judgment, we cannot conclude that the Attorney General’s evidence conclusively established a presumption of a 8 The Texas Supreme Court also considered whether “the existence of a present or threatened violation . . . will support the issuance of a permanent injunction” and noted, “When the jury finds violations occurring and continuing up to or near the date of the trial, the trial court may, in equity, determine that the defendant has engaged in a settled course of conduct and may assume that it wil 2003See State v. Texas Pet Foods, Inc. , 591 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Tex. 1979) (affirming injunction against violations of the Texas Clean Air Act, the Texas Water Quality Act, and Texas Renderers' Licensing Act, each of which authorizes injunctive relief upon finding a present or threatened violation of the Act); San Miguel v. City of Windcrest , 40 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (affirming temporary injunction expressly authorized in section 211.012(c) of the Texas Local Government Code against violation of zoning ordinance without showing injury); Gulf Holding Corp. v. Brazoria Coun | 2 | 3 |
Gulf Holding Corporation v. Brazoria Countygreen1 sentence2003See State v. Texas Pet Foods, Inc. , 591 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Tex. 1979) (affirming injunction against violations of the Texas Clean Air Act, the Texas Water Quality Act, and Texas Renderers' Licensing Act, each of which authorizes injunctive relief upon finding a present or threatened violation of the Act); San Miguel v. City of Windcrest , 40 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (affirming temporary injunction expressly authorized in section 211.012(c) of the Texas Local Government Code against violation of zoning ordinance without showing injury); Gulf Holding Corp. v. Brazoria Coun | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte George Tuckergreen2 sentences1993Injunctive relief is “designed primarily to grant relief against the threatened violation of a right when legal remedies are inadequate.” See Garland v. Shepherd, 445 S.W.2d 602, 604 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, no writ); see also Ex parte Tucker, 110 Tex. 335, 338 , 220 S.W. 75, 76 (1920); see generally 6 L. 1993Injunctive relief is “designed primarily to grant relief against the threatened violation of a right when legal remedies are inadequate.” See Garland v. Shepherd, 445 S.W.2d 602, 604 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, no writ); see also Ex parte Tucker, 110 Tex. 335, 338 , 220 S.W. 75, 76 (1920); see generally 6 L. | 1 | 1 |
Garland v. Shepherdgreen2 sentences1993Injunctive relief is “designed primarily to grant relief against the threatened violation of a right when legal remedies are inadequate.” See Garland v. Shepherd, 445 S.W.2d 602, 604 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, no writ); see also Ex parte Tucker, 110 Tex. 335, 338 , 220 S.W. 75, 76 (1920); see generally 6 L. 1993Injunctive relief is "designed primarily to grant relief against the threatened violation of a right when legal remedies are inadequate." See Garland v. Shepherd, 445 S.W.2d 602, 604 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1969, no writ); see also Ex parte Tucker, 110 Tex. 335, 338 , 220 S.W. 75, 76 (1920); see generally 6 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Miguel v. City of Windcrest
green
1 sentence2003See State v. Texas Pet Foods, Inc. , 591 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Tex. 1979) (affirming injunction against violations of the Texas Clean Air Act, the Texas Water Quality Act, and Texas Renderers' Licensing Act, each of which authorizes injunctive relief upon finding a present or threatened violation of the Act); San Miguel v. City of Windcrest , 40 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (affirming temporary injunction expressly authorized in section 211.012(c) of the Texas Local Government Code against violation of zoning ordinance without showing injury); Gulf Holding Corp. v. Brazoria Coun | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Moore v. Duggan Abstract Co.
neutral
1 sentence1984Moore v. Duggan Abstract Co., 154 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Civ.App.1941, writ ref’d w.o.m.). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports
green
2 sentences1958With respect to the orders failing to define the injury and to state why it is irreparable, as required by Rule 683, it is thought that the judgment is in substantial compliance with the Rule under the Supreme Court holding in Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports, Inc., 152 Tex. 551 , 261 S.W.2d 549 . 1958With respect to the orders failing to define the injury and to state why it is irreparable, as required by Rule 683, it is thought that the judgment is in substantial compliance with the Rule under the Supreme Court holding in Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports, Inc., 152 Tex. 551 , 261 S.W.2d 549 . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.