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 2 courts 1996–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Able Supply Co. v. Moyegreen2 sentences2019Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see H.E.B., 492 S.W.3d at 302, 304 (granting mandamus relief after trial court denied HEB’s motion that plaintiff be required to submit to physical examination and noting that results of requested examination “go to the heart of HEB’s defense strategy”). 2019Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see H.E.B., 492 S.W.3d at 302, 304 (granting mandamus relief after trial court denied HEB’s motion that plaintiff be required to submit to physical examination and noting that results of requested examination “go to the heart of HEB’s defense strategy”). | 2 | 2 |
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.green2 sentences2019Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see H.E.B., 492 S.W.3d at 302, 304 (granting mandamus relief after trial court denied HEB’s motion that plaintiff be required to submit to physical examination and noting that results of requested examination “go to the heart of HEB’s defense strategy”). 2019Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see H.E.B., 492 S.W.3d at 302, 304 (granting mandamus relief after trial court denied HEB’s motion that plaintiff be required to submit to physical examination and noting that results of requested examination “go to the heart of HEB’s defense strategy”). | 1 | 4 |
Binur v. Jacobogreen1 sentence2026Corp. v. Wallace, 642 S.W.3d 502 , 509 (Tex. 2022). 8 Binur v. Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646, 650 (Tex. 2004); Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgwaygreen1 sentence2020See Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.green1 sentence2019Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice 2 We note the Texas Supreme Court has commented on a stay being appropriate to prevent “a non-signatory affiliate [from] simultaneously conduct[ing] discovery and chip[ping] away at the same issues in litigation.” In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 315 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. 2010). -5- | 1 | 1 |
Sherwood Lane Associates v. O'NEILLgreen1 sentence2016Without his own testing, Yohman “would be precluded from examining matters not covered by the [plaintiffs neuropsychologist’s] examinations and would be precluded from making his own observations,” leaving him “severely restriet[ed]” from “discover[ing] facts that may contradict the opinions of the [plaintiffs] expert witnesses.” Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O’Neill, 782 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding); see In re H.E.B., 2016 WL 3157538 , at *3 (granting mandamus relief when HEB sought same type .of examination plaintiffs expert had already performed and req | 1 | 1 |
in Re: Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc.green1 sentence2016Without his own testing, Yohman “would be precluded from examining matters not covered by the [plaintiffs neuropsychologist’s] examinations and would be precluded from making his own observations,” leaving him “severely restriet[ed]” from “discover[ing] facts that may contradict the opinions of the [plaintiffs] expert witnesses.” Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O’Neill, 782 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding); see In re H.E.B., 2016 WL 3157538 , at *3 (granting mandamus relief when HEB sought same type .of examination plaintiffs expert had already performed and req | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2016Notwithstanding that abuse of discretion, we will not grant mandamus relief if there is a “clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal.” State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Byron D. Neely, Individually, and Byron D. Neely, M.D., P.A. v. Nanci Wilson, CBS Stations Group of Texas, L.P., D/B/A Keye-Tv and Viacom, Inc.green2 sentences2014See Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Tex. 2013). 2 Saenz filed a response to HEB’s motion for summary judgment. 2014See Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Tex. 2013). 2 Saenz filed a response to HEB’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto
green
2 sentences1998The court of appeals affirmed. 928 S.W.2d 197 . 1998The court of appeals affirmed. 928 S.W.2d 197 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Spring Independent School District v. Harris County Appraisal District
neutral
1 sentence1996The Appraisal District further argued that section 23.12(f) of the Tax Code is unconstitutional because it results in an unconstitutional exemption from taxation under section 2 of article VIII of the Texas Constitution. 4 Finally, the Appraisal District argued that section 23.12(f) violates the requirement in section 1(a) of article VIII of the Texas Constitution that taxation be equal and uniform. 5 The ninth court of appeals agreed with the Appraisal District, holding that section 23.12(f) violates article VIII, section 1(a) of our state Constitution, and expressly adopted the opinion of th | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co.
green
1 sentence1996Id. at 110 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School District
green
1 sentence1996The Appraisal District further argued that section 23.12(f) of the Tax Code is unconstitutional because it results in an unconstitutional exemption from taxation under section 2 of article VIII of the Texas Constitution. 4 Finally, the Appraisal District argued that section 23.12(f) violates the requirement in section 1(a) of article VIII of the Texas Constitution that taxation be equal and uniform. 5 The ninth court of appeals agreed with the Appraisal District, holding that section 23.12(f) violates article VIII, section 1(a) of our state Constitution, and expressly adopted the opinion of th | 1 | 1996–1996 |