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 1958–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keene Corp. v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2015Keene Corp. The Willises' next ten issues address Mike Willis's v. Gardner, 837 S.W.2d 224, 228-29 (Tex.App.-Dallas breach of fiduciary duty. 1992, writ denied). 2003Keene Corp. v. Gardner, 837 S.W.2d 224, 228-29 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied). | 2 | 3 |
Ake v. Oklahomagreen1 sentence2020The Trial Court’s Orders On July 8, 2019, the trial court issued the following order, titled Order on Defendant’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, which we reproduce verbatim save for several redactions: After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel concerning Defendant’s issuance of a subpoena duces tecum of the complaining witness’s cell phone related to communications between her and defendant, as well as her and defendant’s mother and defendant’s girlfriend, and an ex-parte in camera [FN] review of five (5) areas of communications between the complaining witness and the defendant, the Court | 1 | 1 |
State of Texas v. Guerrero, Ex Parte Marcelinogreen1 sentence2019See State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576, 583 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Festus-Crystal City Elks Lodge 1721 v. Crystal City Properties, L.L.C.green1 sentence2016State v. Clampitt , 364 S.W.3d 605 , 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) ("The rationale used by the Warshak court in establishing individuals' reasonable expectation of privacy in the *843 contents of their email is equally applicable to cell phone users' expectations of privacy in the contents of their test messages."). | 1 | 1 |
Puentes v. FANNIE MAEgreen1 sentence2014Puentes v. Fannie Mae, 350 S.W.3d 732, 738 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (citing State v. Cent. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Unified Loans, Inc. v. Pettijohn
green
1 sentence2025Those responsibilities include the following: (i) “arriving at the contents of the rule as finally adopted,” (ii) “in stating reasons for and against adoption, and” (iii) “in formulating the required contents of the adopting order, including a ‘reasoned justification’ for the rule.” Id. 45 B. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
El Paso Hospital District v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission
green
1 sentence2015Comm’n, 247 S.W.3d 709 , 714–15 (Tex. 2008) (holding that “rule” not properly promulgated under APA procedures is invalid); Texas State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Witcher, 447 S.W.3d 520 , 534–36 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. filed) (same). 18 See generally Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2001.0225–.034 (APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures). 19 See id. § 2001.035. 7 public have notice of proposed rules and the opportunity to offer meaningful input regarding them, and that the agency in turn “might exercise intelligently its responsibilities in arriving at the contents of the rule as finally adopted, in s | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. Witcher
green
1 sentence2015Comm’n, 247 S.W.3d 709 , 714–15 (Tex. 2008) (holding that “rule” not properly promulgated under APA procedures is invalid); Texas State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Witcher, 447 S.W.3d 520 , 534–36 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. filed) (same). 18 See generally Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2001.0225–.034 (APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures). 19 See id. § 2001.035. 7 public have notice of proposed rules and the opportunity to offer meaningful input regarding them, and that the agency in turn “might exercise intelligently its responsibilities in arriving at the contents of the rule as finally adopted, in s | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Burch, Benjamin Knighten
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 639-40 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
GMC v. Saenz on Behalf of Saenz
green
2 sentences2005On the other hand, if a claimant reads instructions or a warning in an effort to avoid injury and is confused or misled by the contents of the warning or instruction, "it is reasonable to presume that a clearer warning would *551 have been to greater effect." Saenz, 873 S.W.2d at 360 . 2005On the other hand, if a claimant reads instructions or a warning in an effort to avoid injury and is confused or misled by the contents of the warning or instruction, “it is reasonable to presume that a clearer warning would have been to greater effect.” Saenz, 873 S.W.2d at 360 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Monsanto Co.
green
1 sentence2004In re Monsanto Co., 998 S.W.2d at 925 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Salinas v. Salinas
neutral
2 sentences1958"We do not consider this testimony as reflecting any effort to prove the contents of a rule of the Railroad Commission but rather to test the knowledge and qualifications of the witness preliminary to proving the practices of defendant Mabee which were material to the issue of negligence of such company." In Salinas v. Salinas, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 568, 569 , wr. dis., it is stated: "The testimony of a person having knowledge as to the facts evidenced by book accounts and able to testify to them from memory has always been admissible." It has been held that experts familiar with the content 1958"We do not consider this testimony as reflecting any effort to prove the contents of a rule of the Railroad Commission but rather to test the knowledge and qualifications of the witness preliminary to proving the practices of defendant Mabee which were material to the issue of negligence of such company." In Salinas v. Salinas, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 568, 569 , wr. dis., it is stated: "The testimony of a person having knowledge as to the facts evidenced by book accounts and able to testify to them from memory has always been admissible." It has been held that experts familiar with the content | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.