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 1983–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. and Brien Garcia v. Nury Chapagreen2 sentences2019See Tony Gullo Motors, 212 S.W.3d at 314 (noting as an example that an opinion stating that ninety-five percent of drafting time would have been necessary even without the unsuccessful claim would have been sufficient). 2019See Tony Gullo Motors, 212 S.W.3d at 314 (noting as an example that an opinion stating that ninety-five percent of drafting time would have been necessary even without the unsuccessful claim would have been sufficient). | 5 | 5 |
Hensley v. Eckerhartgreen2 sentences2004See id., 461 U.S. at 440 , 103 S.Ct. at 1943 (stating that “[w]here the plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee” and that “[w]here a lawsuit consists of related claims, a plaintiff who has won substantial relief should not have his attorney’s fee reduced simply because the district court did not adopt each contention raised”). 2004See id., 461 U.S. at 440 , 103 S.Ct. at 1943 (stating that “[w]here the plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee” and that “[w]here a lawsuit consists of related claims, a plaintiff who has won substantial relief should not have his attorney’s fee reduced simply because the district court did not adopt each contention raised”). | 5 | 5 |
Goldman v. Alkekgreen2 sentences2022Goldman v. Alkek, 850 S.W.2d 568 , 578–79 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1993, no writ); see Weizhong Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 180, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (remanding appellate attorney’s fees to the trial court for segregation of fees for successful claims, or to demonstrate why segregation 15 is not required); Pickett v. Keene, 47 S.W.3d 67, 78 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, pet. dism’d) (“An appellee is not entitled to an award of appellate attorney’s fees for that portion of fees attributable to an unsuccessful defense of the 2001Goldman v. Alkek, 850 S.W.2d 568, 578 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no writ) (op. on mot. for reh’g); Southwestern Bell Tel. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Moralesgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Morales, 253 S.W.3d 686, 698 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Pickett v. Keenegreen1 sentence2022Goldman v. Alkek, 850 S.W.2d 568 , 578–79 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1993, no writ); see Weizhong Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 180, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (remanding appellate attorney’s fees to the trial court for segregation of fees for successful claims, or to demonstrate why segregation 15 is not required); Pickett v. Keene, 47 S.W.3d 67, 78 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, pet. dism’d) (“An appellee is not entitled to an award of appellate attorney’s fees for that portion of fees attributable to an unsuccessful defense of the | 1 | 1 |
Weizhong Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc. and Linh C. Dinhgreen1 sentence2022Goldman v. Alkek, 850 S.W.2d 568 , 578–79 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1993, no writ); see Weizhong Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 180, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (remanding appellate attorney’s fees to the trial court for segregation of fees for successful claims, or to demonstrate why segregation 15 is not required); Pickett v. Keene, 47 S.W.3d 67, 78 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, pet. dism’d) (“An appellee is not entitled to an award of appellate attorney’s fees for that portion of fees attributable to an unsuccessful defense of the | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen1 sentence1991Smith v. Smith, 757 S.W.2d 422, 426 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, writ denied); Siegler v. Williams, 658 S.W.2d 236, 241 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); see also Ortiz v. O.J. | 1 | 1 |
Siegler v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1991Smith v. Smith, 757 S.W.2d 422, 426 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, writ denied); Siegler v. Williams, 658 S.W.2d 236, 241 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); see also Ortiz v. O.J. | 1 | 1 |
Boucher v. City Paint & Supply, Inc.green1 sentence1983Bolin, 278 S.W.2d at 884 ; see Boucher v. City Paint & Supply Co., 398 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1966, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bolin v. Pacific Finance Corporation
green
1 sentence1983Bolin, 278 S.W.2d at 884 ; see Boucher v. City Paint & Supply Co., 398 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1966, no writ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.