13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cherry v. Stategreen2 sentences2011And because we have previously held that a factual sufficiency review is inapplicable to revocation proceedings, see Cherry v. State , 215 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d), we will address only Mr. Douglas’s claim that the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that he violated a term of his community supervision. 2011And because we have previously held that a factual sufficiency review is inapplicable to revocation proceedings, see Cherry v. State, 215 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d), we will address only Mr. Douglas’s claim that the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that he violated a term of his community supervision. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. McAdamsgreen2 sentences2022We will read pro se pleadings liberally to discern the substance of the complaints, see Johnson v. McAdams, 781 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ), but will not overlook a lack of supporting facts or a failure to meet procedural requirements, see Cohn, 573 S.W.2d at 184-85 ; Johnson, 781 S.W.2d at 452-53 . 2 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. signed orders denying Douglas’s motion to divide and motion to enforce and several months later signed an order dismissing for want of prosecution the motion for contempt. 2022We will read pro se pleadings liberally to discern the substance of the complaints, see Johnson v. McAdams, 781 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ), but will not overlook a lack of supporting facts or a failure to meet procedural requirements, see Cohn, 573 S.W.2d at 184-85 ; Johnson, 781 S.W.2d at 452-53 . 2 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. signed orders denying Douglas’s motion to divide and motion to enforce and several months later signed an order dismissing for want of prosecution the motion for contempt. | 1 | 1 |
in Re Michael Allyn Conner and Iesi Solid Waste Servicesgreen1 sentence2022See In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d 532, 534 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding); Harrison v. Employees Ret. | 1 | 1 |
Rice v. Ricegreen1 sentence2018See Rice , 533 S.W.3d at 61 . | 1 | 1 |
Ibarra v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 197 ; Wright, 154 S.W.3d at 241 . | 1 | 1 |
Carson v. McFarlandgreen1 sentence2015Carson v. McFarland, 206 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1947, writ ref'd). 1 The trial court granted summary judgment in error because there were genuine issues of material fact as to each element of Douglas' claim to set aside his ranch as his probate homestead. 12 In its opinion, dated January 15, 2014, in the prior appeal in this case this Court stated: “Before the inventory, appraisement, and list of claims is approved or before the filing of the affidavit in lieu of the inventory, appraisement, and list of claims, a surviving spouse may apply to the probate court pursuant to s | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.green2 sentences2012McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687, 690-91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (applying McDonnell-Douglas analysis to disability discrimination claim under TCHRA); Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Martinez, 296 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.) (applying McDo nnell-Douglas analysis to pregnancy discrimination claim under TCHRA). 2012McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687, 690-91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (applying McDonnell-Douglas analysis to disability discrimination claim under TCHRA); Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Martinez, 296 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.) (applying McDo nnell-Douglas analysis to pregnancy discrimination claim under TCHRA). | 1 | 1 |
Canseco v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Canseco, 199 S.W.3d at 439 . | 1 | 1 |
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2012McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687, 690-91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (applying McDonnell-Douglas analysis to disability discrimination claim under TCHRA); Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Martinez, 296 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.) (applying McDo nnell-Douglas analysis to pregnancy discrimination claim under TCHRA). | 1 | 1 |
Michael v. City of Dallasgreen1 sentence2012McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687, 690-91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (applying McDonnell-Douglas analysis to disability discrimination claim under TCHRA); Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Martinez, 296 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.) (applying McDo nnell-Douglas analysis to pregnancy discrimination claim under TCHRA). | 1 | 1 |
Brazosport Bank of Texas v. Oak Park Townhousesgreen1 sentence2010See Brazosport Bank of Texas v. Oak Park Townhouses, 889 S.W.2d 676, 683 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (relationship between general partner and limited partners in a limited partnership is fiduciary in nature). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dobbinsgreen1 sentence2009Instead of a verification, Douglas’s motion purports to include an “affidavit.” An affidavit is statutorily defined as “a statement in writing of a fact or facts signed by the party making it, sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths, and officially certified to by the officer under his seal of office.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 312.011(1) (Vernon 2005); see In re Dobbins , 247 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
Kemp v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Kemp v. State , 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn
green
1 sentence2022We will read pro se pleadings liberally to discern the substance of the complaints, see Johnson v. McAdams, 781 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ), but will not overlook a lack of supporting facts or a failure to meet procedural requirements, see Cohn, 573 S.W.2d at 184-85 ; Johnson, 781 S.W.2d at 452-53 . 2 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. signed orders denying Douglas’s motion to divide and motion to enforce and several months later signed an order dismissing for want of prosecution the motion for contempt. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence2016See Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 197 ; Wright, 154 S.W.3d at 241 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Christopher L. Gay and Steven L. Carroll v. the City of Wichita Falls, Texas
green
1 sentence2015In its first amended plea to the jurisdiction the City stated that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Douglas’s declaratory judgment claim because he “did not exhaust his administrative remedies.” And in its reply in support of its plea to the jurisdiction the City explained the prerequisite administrative procedure and then stated, “For these reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction over [Douglas’s] declaratory judgment claim against the City and it should be dismissed with prejudice.” –7– unless we “first determine whether the City entered into the contract in its proprietary capacity,” b | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences2012McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687, 690-91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (applying McDonnell-Douglas analysis to disability discrimination claim under TCHRA); Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Martinez, 296 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.) (applying McDo nnell-Douglas analysis to pregnancy discrimination claim under TCHRA). 2012McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Michael v. City of Dallas, 314 S.W.3d 687, 690-91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (applying McDonnell-Douglas analysis to disability discrimination claim under TCHRA); Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Martinez, 296 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.) (applying McDo nnell-Douglas analysis to pregnancy discrimination claim under TCHRA). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Delorme v. State
green
2 sentences1975He relies on the following principle *717 stated in Delorme v. State, 488 S.W.2d 808 , 811: "It is the duty of the court, if it can be done to construe a statute so that it will remain valid. 1975He relies on the following principle stated in Delorme v. State, 488 S.W.2d 808 , 811: “It is the duty of the court, if it can be done to construe a statute so that it will remain valid. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.