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.
93 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1906–2026 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitleygreen2 sentences2024Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003). 2023See Rattray v. City of Brownsville, 662 S.W.3d 860 , 865-66 (Tex. 2023); Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003). | 11 | 11 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2025Tex Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999); Brazoria Cty. v. Colquitt, 226 S.W.3d 551, 555 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist. 2007, no pet.). 2024Tex Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999). | 6 | 6 |
Strong v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Strong v. State, 773 S.W.2d 543, 552 (Tex. Crim. 2011Harvey v. State, 97 S.W.3d 162, 168 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (citing Strong v. State, 773 S.W.2d 543, 552 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)). | 5 | 5 |
Kappus v. Kappusgreen2 sentences2023Kappus v. Kappus, 284 S.W.3d 831, 835 (Tex. 2009). 2021Kappus v. Kappus, 284 S.W.3d 831, 835 (Tex. 2009). | 3 | 3 |
Feldman v. Stategreen2 sentences2008“The proponent of a challenge for cause has the burden of establishing his challenge is proper.” Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 747 . 2008"The proponent of a challenge for cause has the burden of establishing his challenge is proper." Feldman , 71 S.W.3d at 747 . | 2 | 11 |
Russell v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9 B 10 (Tex. Crim. 2003Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7, 9-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). | 2 | 3 |
University of Texas at El Paso v. Herreragreen2 sentences2025Sovereign immunity can be waived in one of two ways: “(1) Congress validly abrogates it, or (2) the State voluntarily waives it.” University of Texas at El Paso v. Herrera, 322 S.W.3d 192, 195 (Tex. 2010). 2025Therefore, in order to establish the trial court’s jurisdiction, Appellee bears the burden of establishing a waiver or exception to each Appellants’ sovereign immunity. 21 Sovereign immunity can be waived in one of two ways: “(1) Congress validly abrogates it, or (2) the State voluntarily waives it.” University of Texas at El Paso v. Herrera, 322 S.W.3d 192, 195 (Tex. 2010). | 2 | 2 |
Harrell v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2019Harrell v. Alvarez, 46 S.W.3d 483, 485 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2001, no pet.). 2003Harrell v. Alvarez, 46 S.W.3d 483, 485 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102 , 128 n.2 (Tex. Crim. 2002See, e.g., Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102 , 128 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Harris v. State, 784 S.W.2d 5, 25 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); see also Colella v. State, 915 S.W.2d 834, 846 (Tex.Crim.App.1995)(Clinton, J., dissenting). | 2 | 2 |
McKinney v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburghgreen2 sentences2017Co., 772 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex. 1989) (“[T]he objecting party must assume the burden of establishing its privilege, immunity or other objection to the discovery request.” (emphasis added)). 2017Co., 772 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex. 1989) (“[T]he objecting party must assume the burden of establishing its privilege, immunity or other objection to the discovery request.” (emphasis added)). | 2 | 2 |
Englander Co. v. Kennedygreen2 sentences1977We have disposed of the appeal upon sound procedural grounds following the rule enunciated in Englander Company, Inc. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex.1968): "The burden is upon a party appealing from a trial court judgment to show that the judgment is erroneous in order to obtain a reversal." And, we hasten to add, it is the appellant's burden of establishing error within the framework of the applicable rules governing our appellate practice. 1977We have disposed of the appeal upon sound procedural grounds following the rule enunciated in Englander Company, Inc. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex.1968): “The burden is upon a party appealing from a trial court judgment to show that the judgment is erroneous in order to obtain a reversal.” And, we hasten to add, it is the appellant’s burden of establishing error within the framework of the applicable rules governing our appellate practice. | 2 | 2 |
Nancy Quested v. the City of Houstongreen2 sentences2015Quested v. City of Houston, 440 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); Tex. Dep’t of Pub. 2015Quested v. City of Houston, 440 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); Tex. Dep’t of Pub. | 2 | 2 |
Harvey v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Harvey v. State, 97 S.W.3d 162, 168 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (citing Strong v. State, 773 S.W.2d 543, 552 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)). 2011Harvey v. State, 97 S.W.3d 162, 168 (Tex. App.––Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref‘d) (citing Strong v. State, 773 S.W.2d 543, 552 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Warner v. Hurtgreen2 sentences2004While the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the standard of care in a medical malpractice case, a failure of the plaintiff’s expert to define the standard of care does not necessarily require the trial court to strike the expert’s affidavit: “Such a failure may ultimately go to the weight or value of the expert’s testimony to the fact finder, but not to its admissibility, or to the qualifications of the witness to testify.” Warner v. Hurt , 834 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ) . 2004While the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the standard of care in a medical malpractice case, a failure of the plaintiffs expert to define the standard of care does not necessarily require the trial court to strike the expert’s affidavit: “Such a failure may ultimately go to the weight or value of the expert’s testimony to the fact finder, but not to its admissibility, or to the qualifications of the witness to testify.” Warner v. Hurt, 834 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (plurality opinion). 1995Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, 753 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (plurality opinion). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Rohledergreen2 sentences1995See Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Kollenbom, 154 Tex. 223 , 276 S.W.2d 251, 253 (1955). 1991See Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Kollenborn, 154 Tex. 223 , 276 S.W.2d 251, 253 (1955); Ex parte Mulkey, 776 S.W.2d 308, 311 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st] 1989, orig. proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Kollenborngreen2 sentences1995See Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Kollenbom, 154 Tex. 223 , 276 S.W.2d 251, 253 (1955). 1995See Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Kollenbom, 154 Tex. 223 , 276 S.W.2d 251, 253 (1955). | 2 | 2 |
Whitehead v. Stategreen2 sentences1977Forbes v. State, supra; Carver v. State, supra; Whitehead v. State, 450 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Cumpston v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 385 , 235 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Cr.App.1951). 1974See Carver v. State, supra; Whitehead v. State, 450 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. Cr.App.1969); Cumpston v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 385 , 235 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 3 |
In re State Farm Lloydsgreen2 sentences2026In re State Farm Lloyds, 514 S.W.3d 789, 792 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (orig. proceeding). 2025In re State Farm Lloyds, 514 S.W.3d at 792 . | 1 | 2 |
City of Houston v. Swinerton Builders, Inc.green1 sentence2025“Because a governmental unit is protected from suit by governmental immunity, pleadings in a suit against a governmental unit must affirmatively demonstrate, either by reference to a statute or express legislative permission, that the Legislature consented to the suit.” City of Houston v. Swinerton Builders, Inc., 233 S.W.3d 4, 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Floridagreen1 sentence2025A Congres- sional abrogation of sovereign immunity is only valid “provided Congress (1) unequivocally expresses its intent to do so, and (2) acts ‘pursuant to a con- stitutional provision granting Congress the power to abrogate.’” Id. (quoting Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 59 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Brazoria County v. Colquittgreen1 sentence2025Tex Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999); Brazoria Cty. v. Colquitt, 226 S.W.3d 551, 555 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist. 2007, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
John Sampson v. the University of Texas at Austingreen1 sentence2021The TTCA expressly waives sovereign immunity in three general areas: use of publicly owned automobiles, premises defects, and injuries arising out of a condition or use of tangible personal property.5 And as to premises defects, the TTCA limits the duty owed to a plaintiff to “the duty that a private person owes to a licensee on private property, unless the [plaintiff] pays for the use of the premises.”6 (Internal quotations omitted.) Such a duty requires a premises owner to “not injure a licensee by willful, wanton or grossly negligent conduct, and that the 5 See Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at A | 1 | 1 |
Cardona v. Stategreen1 sentence2016App. 2006) (citing Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Rickels v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Trevino v. Houston Orthopedic Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Crescendo Investments, Inc. v. Bricegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Cornyngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Johnsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Garza v. Garzagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sells v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Weaver v. Wittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Colella v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lowrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arkla, Inc. v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Pitlukgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moberg v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Mulkeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cumpston v. State
neutral
2 sentences1977Forbes v. State, supra; Carver v. State, supra; Whitehead v. State, 450 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Cumpston v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 385 , 235 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Cr.App.1951). 1977Forbes v. State, supra; Carver v. State, supra; Whitehead v. State, 450 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Cumpston v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 385 , 235 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Cr.App.1951). | 5 | 1968–1977 |
Barber v. Page
green
2 sentences1977The Supreme Court in Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968), noted that the exception to the confrontation requirement has been explained and “justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Where the State seeks to reproduce testimony of an absent witness given at a prior hearing, it has the burden of establishing an exception to the right of confrontation. 1977The Supreme Court in Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968), noted that the exception to the confrontation requirement has been explained and “justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Where the State seeks to reproduce testimony of an absent witness given at a prior hearing, it has the burden of establishing an exception to the right of confrontation. | 3 | 1974–1977 |
Scott v. State
neutral
2 sentences1957The charge on self-defense as above shown erroneously placed on the appellant the burden of establishing such defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 Tex. Jur. 1014, Sec. 281; Scott v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 346 , 283 S.W. 835 ; Pena v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 102 , 151 S.W.2d 598 . 1957The charge on self-defense as above shown erroneously placed on the appellant the burden of establishing such defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 Tex. Jur. 1014, Sec. 281; Scott v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 346 , 283 S.W. 835 ; Pena v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 102 , 151 S.W.2d 598 . | 3 | 1941–1957 |
Gardner v. State
green
2 sentences2015Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 295 . 2015Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 295 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Firstmerit Bank, N.A.
green
2 sentences2003FirstMerit , 52 S.W.3d at 756 . 2003FirstMerit, 52 S.W.3d at 756 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Pena v. State
neutral
2 sentences1957The charge on self-defense as above shown erroneously placed on the appellant the burden of establishing such defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 Tex. Jur. 1014, Sec. 281; Scott v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 346 , 283 S.W. 835 ; Pena v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 102 , 151 S.W.2d 598 . 1957The charge on self-defense as above shown erroneously placed on the appellant the burden of establishing such defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 Tex. Jur. 1014, Sec. 281; Scott v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 346 , 283 S.W. 835 ; Pena v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 102 , 151 S.W.2d 598 . | 2 | 1956–1957 |
| In Re Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Loftin v. Martin green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| United States v. Dario Dicesare, United States of America v. Kathleen Flannery, United States of America v. Jose Marin green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Rakas v. Illinois green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| North Carolina v. Butler red | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Johnson v. Zerbst green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| In Re GAULT green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| McCarty v. Humphrey green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Benanti v. Delaware Insurance green | 1 | 1941–1941 |
| Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Shieder green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.