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.
13 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mireles v. Wacogreen2 sentences2004Mireles, 502 U.S. at 13 , 112 S.Ct. 286 (holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act); Forrester, 484 U.S. at 227 , 108 S.Ct. 538 ("When applied to ... acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial.”). 11 . 2004Mireles, 502 U.S. at 13 , 112 S.Ct. 286 (holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act); Forrester, 484 U.S. at 227 , 108 S.Ct. 538 ("When applied to ... acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial.”). 11 . | 2 | 4 |
Dallas County v. Halseygreen2 sentences2019Walker v. Hartman, 516 S.W.3d 71, 82 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2017, pet. denied) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002); Spencer v. City of Seagoville, 700 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ)). 2017Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002); Spencer v. City of Seagoville, 700 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Spencer v. City of Seagovillegreen2 sentences2019Walker v. Hartman, 516 S.W.3d 71, 82 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2017, pet. denied) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002); Spencer v. City of Seagoville, 700 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ)). 2017Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002); Spencer v. City of Seagoville, 700 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Griffin v. Rowdengreen2 sentences2015See Griffin v. Rowden, 702 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1985, writ ref d n.r.e)(holding that the filing of a /is pendens was absolutely privileged in an action for tortious interference with contract.); Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 11 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tex. App.-Houston [Pt Dist.], 1999 pet denied)( concluding that prior testimony by a witness was subject to the affirmative defense of absolute immunity to a claim oftortious interference). 2015See Griffin v. Rowden, 702 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e)(holding that the filing of a lis pendens was absolutely privileged in an action for tortious interference with contract.); Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 11 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 1999 pet denied)(concluding that prior testimony by a witness was subject to the affirmative defense of absolute immunity to a claim of tortious interference). | 2 | 2 |
Crain v. UPLCgreen2 sentences2015See Griffin v. Rowden, 702 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1985, writ ref d n.r.e)(holding that the filing of a /is pendens was absolutely privileged in an action for tortious interference with contract.); Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 11 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tex. App.-Houston [Pt Dist.], 1999 pet denied)( concluding that prior testimony by a witness was subject to the affirmative defense of absolute immunity to a claim oftortious interference). 2015See Griffin v. Rowden, 702 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e)(holding that the filing of a lis pendens was absolutely privileged in an action for tortious interference with contract.); Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 11 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 1999 pet denied)(concluding that prior testimony by a witness was subject to the affirmative defense of absolute immunity to a claim of tortious interference). | 2 | 2 |
Forrester v. Whitegreen2 sentences2004Mireles, 502 U.S. at 13 , 112 S.Ct. 286 (holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act); Forrester, 484 U.S. at 227 , 108 S.Ct. 538 ("When applied to ... acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial.”). 11 . 2004Mireles, 502 U.S. at 13 , 112 S.Ct. 286 (holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act); Forrester, 484 U.S. at 227 , 108 S.Ct. 538 ("When applied to ... acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial.”). 11 . | 1 | 5 |
Stump v. Sparkmangreen2 sentences2019Walker v. Hartman, 516 S.W.3d 71, 82 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2017, pet. denied) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002); Spencer v. City of Seagoville, 700 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ)). 2017Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002); Spencer v. City of Seagoville, 700 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ). | 1 | 2 |
County Investment, LP v. Royal West Investment, LLC, Series E and Shawn Shabazigreen1 sentence2021See County Inv., 513 S.W.3d at 581 . | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Hartmangreen1 sentence2019Walker v. Hartman, 516 S.W.3d 71, 82 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2017, pet. denied) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002); Spencer v. City of Seagoville, 700 S.W.2d 953, 957-58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ)). | 1 | 1 |
Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Charlotte Rutherfordgreen1 sentence2017CODE ANN. § 51.014; Fleming & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied); Schlumberger Ltd. v. Rutherford, 472 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.). 4 Moricz also argued that the statements made in the demand letters were subject to an absolute judicial privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. (n/K/A Fleming, Nolen & Jez L.L.P.) and George Fleming v. Charles Kirklin, Stephen Kirklin, Paul Kirklingreen1 sentence2017CODE ANN. § 51.014; Fleming & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied); Schlumberger Ltd. v. Rutherford, 472 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.). 4 Moricz also argued that the statements made in the demand letters were subject to an absolute judicial privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Golden Rule Insurance Co. v. Harpergreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Harpet', 925 S. W.2d 649, 651 (Tex. 1996) (pl-'1' curiam). (1 Counter-Defendants' other request for injunctive rdic!'~ relating to ownership and control of a website 1 and alleged templates, has also already been rejected by the Court, both on the record and in the June 16. 2015 "Order Denying Plaintiffs'!Counter-Dcfcndants' Applicatioll for Tcmponuy Resttainillg Order.'' 34 36 on Amcripro's prosecution of its claims or on statements made in Amcripro's plcadings. 11 85. | 1 | 1 |
Farah v. Mafrige & Kormanik, P.C.green1 sentence2014Dallas Cnty. v. Halsey, 87 & Kormanik, P.C., 927 S.W.2d 663, 674 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (“Tort obligations are those imposed by law when a person breaches a duty which is independent from promises made between the parties to a contract; contractual obligations are those that result from an agreement between parties, which is breached.”). | 1 | 1 |
Pulliam v. Allengreen2 sentences2004Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522, 542-44 (1984). [9] Mireles , 502 U.S. at 12 . [10] Mireles , 502 U.S. at 13 (holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act); Forrester , 484 U.S. at 227 ( A When applied to . . . acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial. @ ). [11] To support her position that the duties imposed by section 671 are not judicial acts, Carrell cites Heyn v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. 2004Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522, 542-44 (1984). [9] Mireles , 502 U.S. at 12 . [10] Mireles , 502 U.S. at 13 (holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act); Forrester , 484 U.S. at 227 ( A When applied to . . . acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial. @ ). [11] To support her position that the duties imposed by section 671 are not judicial acts, Carrell cites Heyn v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Heyn v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.green2 sentences2004Co. , 110 S.W.2d 261, 264-66 (Tex. Civ. 2004Co. , 110 S.W.2d 261, 264-66 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.