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 4 courts 1945–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenezgreen1 sentence2026Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Dawson v. Briggsgreen1 sentence2019Servs., L.P. v. Armijo, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, No. 08-17-00250-CV, 2019 WL 290580 , at *6 (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 23, 2019, no pet. h.) (explaining that a notable exception to the rule prohibiting consideration of materials filed after default judgment in restricted appeals relates to Rule 118 orders amending a return of service because such amendment relates back to the original return) and Dawson v. Briggs, 107 S.W.3d 739, 746 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (determining that Primate’s language requiring amendment of return prior to judgment was “mere dicta”). | 1 | 1 |
Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson Countygreen1 sentence2018See Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 152 (Tex. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Chrysler Corp. v. Schuenemanngreen1 sentence1983Chrysler Corp. v. Schuenemann, 618 S.W.2d 799, 805 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas a & M University System v. Koseoglu
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 840 . 41 C.R. at 9081-9082 (Vol. 40, p. 60-61) (Apr. 14 Order, listing matters before the court) herein); C.R. 8624-8652 (Vol. 36, p. 67-95)(amended plea to jurisdiction filed Jan. 2, 2025); see also C.R. 8653 (notice of hearing for same, filed Jan. 2, 2025). 14 dismiss the Cities’ claims in their entirety with prejudice.” 42 The term “the Cities” utilizes a capitalization format which is well understood to reference a specially defined term, but the State’s Plea provides no definition or explanation. 43 Other than the case style, and one passing comment that “the Cities do not allege t 2025Id. at 840 . 19 The only dispositive motion before the trial court which presented by the State Defendants was their Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction. 60 The prayer for relief within that filing was quite simple: “[State Defendants] respectfully reques[t] that this Court grant their Plea to the Jurisdiction and dismiss the Cities’ claims in their entirety with prejudice.” 61 The term “the Cities” utilizes a capitalization format which is well understood to reference a specially defined term, but the State’s Plea provides no definition or explanation. 62 Other than the case style, and one passi | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity
green
2 sentences2015Code § 27.001(2). 118 See id. § 27.001(4). 119 See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, 969 P.2d 564 , 568–75 (Cal. 1999). 38 statute—section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure120—was one of the earliest “anti- SLAPP” laws and has been a primary model or influence on similar laws subsequently enacted in other states, including, directly or indirectly, the TCPA.121 To this extent, the Legislature’s enactment of the TCPA, with little if any public opposition, represents a notable exception to the antipathy that today’s Texas policymakers are sometimes known to express t 2015Various features of the California statute have also been litigated over the years, and these decisions, like decisions from other states construing similar laws, can sometimes provide guidance regarding comparable TCPA provisions.122 119 See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, 969 P.2d 564 , 568–75 (Cal. 1999). 120 See Cal. Civ. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
cluster 769628
green
2 sentences2004A notable exception is Sandvik, in which the court was presented with the same situation we are presented with here — “a party suing on a contract containing an arbitration clause resists arbitration, and the defendant, who denies the existence of the contract, moves to compel it.” 220 F.3d at 100 . 2004This supports, not contradicts, our holding that AMT is attacking the very existence of a contract. [10] A notable exception is Sandvik , in which the court was presented with the same situation we are presented with here C A a party suing on a contract containing an arbitration clause resists arbitration, and the defendant, who denies the existence of the contract, moves to compel it. @ 220 F.3d at 100 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
El Chico Corp. v. Poole
red
1 sentence2026Id. 2 A notable exception to this rule involves commercial providers of alcohol under the “Dram Shop Act.” See F.F.P. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Braughton, Christopher Ernest
green
1 sentence2020And, per the latter, the State alleged that appellant: did then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the penetration of the sexual organ of LATRICIA . . . by defendant’s penis, without the consent of LATRICIA . . . , and the defendant did then and there by acts or words threaten to cause, or place, LATRICIA . . . in fear that death or serious bodily injury would be imminently inflicted on LATRICIA . . . , and said acts or words occurred in the presence of LATRICIA . . . ; the defendant did then and there use and exhibit a deadly weapon, to-wit: defendant’s foot, that in the manner of its | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Villalobos
green
2 sentences1976In People v. Villalobos, 245 Cal.App.2d 561 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 60 (Dist.Ct. of App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4-*1966), the court stated: “Assuming that, at some point, a trial court and we could take judicial notice that a given quantity of narcotic, or a narcotic in a certain condition of packaging (as, for example, a marijuana cigarette), was usable, the 50 milligrams herein involved, scraped from a pocket, does not reach that status. 1976In People v. Villalobos, 245 Cal.App.2d 561 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 60 (Dist.Ct. of App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4-*1966), the court stated: “Assuming that, at some point, a trial court and we could take judicial notice that a given quantity of narcotic, or a narcotic in a certain condition of packaging (as, for example, a marijuana cigarette), was usable, the 50 milligrams herein involved, scraped from a pocket, does not reach that status. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Kahn v. Kahn
green
2 sentences1945Kahn v. Kahn, 94 Texas 114 , 58 S. W. 825 ; McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Texas 298 , 70 S. W. (2d) 694 . 1945Kahn v. Kahn, 94 Texas 114 , 58 S. W. 825 ; McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Texas 298 , 70 S. W. (2d) 694 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
J. E. McKivett v. McKivett
neutral
2 sentences1945Kahn v. Kahn, 94 Texas 114 , 58 S. W. 825 ; McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Texas 298 , 70 S. W. (2d) 694 . 1945Kahn v. Kahn, 94 Texas 114 , 58 S. W. 825 ; McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Texas 298 , 70 S. W. (2d) 694 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.