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 3 courts 1999–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramsey v. Dunlopgreen2 sentences2012We need not consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking the Alliance’s plea in intervention, however, because we will vacate the court’s judgment for an unrelated reason: the court lacked jurisdiction to render the Agreed Final Judgment, and, consequently, the judgment is void. 4 Although the Alliance does not argue on appeal that the court’s judgment is void, it has long been held that courts of appeals may reverse the judgment of a trial court for an unassigned error if the error is truly “fundamental.” See Ramsey v. Dunlop, 205 S.W.2d 979, 982-83 (Tex. 1947). “[W]hen 2012Although the Alliance does not argue on appeal that the court’s judgment is void, it has long been held that courts of appeals may reverse the judgment of a trial court for an unassigned error if the error is truly “fundamental.” See Ramsey v. Dunlop, 146 Tex. 196 , 205 S.W.2d 979, 982-83 (1947). “[Wjhen the record affirmatively and conclusively shows that the court rendering the judgment was without jurisdiction of the subject matter, the error will also be regarded as fundamental.” McCauley v. Consol. | 3 | 3 |
Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc.green2 sentences2009Judicial Review Under the APA Relying on the supreme court's decision in Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 173 (Tex.2004), the majority erroneously concludes that the Alliance cannot obtain judicial review under section 2001.171 of the APA because section 15.001 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act expressly provides that "[a]ny party to a proceeding before the [C]ommission is entitled to judicial review under the substantial evidence rule." Op. at 281 (citing Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 15.001 (West 2007)) (emphasis added). 2009Judicial Review Under the APA Relying on the supreme court’s decision in Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170,173 (Tex.2004), the majority erroneously concludes that the Alliance cannot obtain judicial review under section 2001.171 of the APA because section 15.001 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act expressly provides that “[a]ny party to a proceeding before the [Cjommission is entitled to judicial review under the substantial evidence rule.” Op. at 281 (citing Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 15.001 (West 2007)) (emphasis added). | 3 | 3 |
Railroad Commission v. Ennis Transportation Co.green2 sentences2009In Railroad Commission v. Ennis Transportation Co ., this Court recognized that generally "the allowance or denial of petitions for intervention in administrative proceedings rests in the discretion of the agency." 695 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex.App.-Austin 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 2009In Railroad Commission v. Ennis Transportation Co., this Court recognized that generally “the allowance or denial of petitions for intervention in administrative proceedings rests in the discretion of the agency.” 695 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex.App.-Austin 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 3 | 3 |
Corea v. Bilekgreen2 sentences2013See Corea, 362 S.W.3d at 826 (precluding relitigation of personal jurisdiction issue and rejecting contention that jurisdictional facts had changed because party opposing preclusion offered no proof of change). 2013See Corea, 362 S.W.3d at 826 (precluding relitigation of personal jurisdiction issue and rejecting contention that jurisdictional facts had changed because party opposing preclusion offered no proof of change). | 1 | 1 |
In Re JFCgreen1 sentence2012Underwriters, Inc., 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (Tex. 1957); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 290-92 (Tex. 2002) (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (discussing fundamental-error doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
McCauley v. Consolidated Underwritersgreen1 sentence2012Underwriters, Inc., 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (Tex. 1957); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 290-92 (Tex. 2002) (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (discussing fundamental-error doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
Aguirre v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Servicesgreen2 sentences2009P. 27.1); Aguirre v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 917 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, no writ) (same). [9] With regard to the Alliance's claim that the district court erred in denying the Alliance leave to amend its pleadings to add a citation to the UDJA, I conclude this was not error based on my previous conclusion that the Alliance was entitled to judicial review under the APA. 2009P. 27.1); Aguirre v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 917 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, no writ) (same). .With regard to the Alliance's claim that the district court erred in denying the Alliance leave to amend its pleadings to add a citation to the UDJA, I conclude this was not error based on my previous conclusion that the Alliance was entitled to judicial review under the APA. | 1 | 1 |
State Bar of Texas v. Kilpatrickgreen1 sentence2009State Bar v. Kilpatrick, 874 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Austin v. Quick
green
2 sentences2015The appellate court first determined that the trial court did Any person affected by any ... not abuse its discretion in striking the Alliance's plea in ordinance ... relating to water pollution intervention. 930 S.W.2d at 683 . 2015The appellate court first determined that the trial court did Any person affected by any ... not abuse its discretion in striking the Alliance's plea in ordinance ... relating to water pollution intervention. 930 S.W.2d at 683 . | 3 | 1999–2015 |
Lindsay v. Sterling
green
2 sentences2009Citing the supreme court's decision in Lindsay v. Sterling, 690 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.1985), the Commission asserts that the Alliance's petition for judicial review was premature under the APA because the Alliance filed its petition for judicial review before it *292 filed a motion for rehearing with the Commission and before the Commission either acted on the Alliance's motion for rehearing or the motion was overruled by operation of law. 2009Citing the supreme court’s decision in Lindsay v. Sterling, 690 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.1985), the Commission asserts that the Alliance’s petition for judicial review was premature under the APA because the Alliance filed its petition for judicial review before it filed a motion for rehearing with the Commission and before the Commission either acted on the Alliance’s motion for rehearing or the motion was overruled by operation of law. | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Guaranty Federal Savings Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co.
green
1 sentence2014Both the City and the Alliance agree that the proper standard of review is the three-part test enunciated by the Texas Supreme Court in Guaranty Federal Savings Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Company, 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.