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 1880–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Bennett, 235 S.W.3d at 243 . 2011See Bennett v. State, 235 S.W.3d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (holding that trial court did not err in failing to submit unrequested instructions on defense of a third person and defense of property). | 4 | 4 |
Granger v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Granger, 3 S.W.3d at 38 . 2015See Granger, 3 S.W.3d at 38 . | 2 | 2 |
Warner v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Warner, 245 S.W.3d at 461 . 2015See Warner, 245 S.W.3d at 461 . | 2 | 2 |
Walters v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See id. | 1 | 1 |
Braughton, Christopher Ernestgreen1 sentence2023Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Lenkgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., FDIC v. Lenk, 361 S.W.3d 602 , care in performing *556 those services; and either (a) the 609 (Tex.2012); see also G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, plaintiff relied upon the defendant's performance, or (b) the 347 S.W.3d 293, 297 (Tex.2011) (per curiam) (“Granting a defendant's performance increased the plaintiff's risk of harm. summary judgment on a claim not addressed in the summary Id.; see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § judgment motion therefore is, as a general rule, reversible 324A (providing the rule for liability to a third person for error.”). | 1 | 1 |
G & H TOWING CO. v. Mageegreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., FDIC v. Lenk, 361 S.W.3d 602 , care in performing *556 those services; and either (a) the 609 (Tex.2012); see also G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, plaintiff relied upon the defendant's performance, or (b) the 347 S.W.3d 293, 297 (Tex.2011) (per curiam) (“Granting a defendant's performance increased the plaintiff's risk of harm. summary judgment on a claim not addressed in the summary Id.; see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § judgment motion therefore is, as a general rule, reversible 324A (providing the rule for liability to a third person for error.”). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Campbell v. State, 125 S.W.3d 1 , 4 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). 1. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2026See PENAL § 2.03 (West 2021), § 9.02, 9.33 (West 2019); Smith, 355 S.W.3d at 144 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Labrecque v. Donham
green
2 sentences1948The petition does not allege that the plaintiff has new evidence to establish this fact, the evidence on the former trial does not establish it, and it would be useless to have a new trial without evidence to show that the defendant’s injuries were caused in whole or in part by his intoxication.” In Labrecque v. Donham, 236 Mass. 10 , 127 N.E. 537 , 539, it is said: “If the plaintiff’s intestate was intoxicated at the time of the accident, this alone does not prevent her maintaining this action and the jury were so instructed; but if his intoxication contributed to the injury in-any degree, sh 1948The petition does not allege that the plaintiff has new evidence to establish this fact, the evidence on the former trial does not establish it, and it would be useless to have a new trial without evidence to show that the defendant's injuries were caused in whole or in part by his intoxication." In Labrecque v. Donham, 236 Mass. 10 , 127 N.E. 537 , 539, it is said: "If the plaintiff's intestate was intoxicated at the time of the accident, this alone does not prevent her maintaining this action and the jury were so instructed; but if his intoxication contributed to the injury in any degree, sh | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Sugar v. Hafele
green
2 sentences1948The petition does not allege that the plaintiff has new evidence to establish this fact, the evidence on the former trial does not establish it, and it would be useless to have a new trial without evidence to show that the defendant's injuries were caused in whole or in part by his intoxication." In Labrecque v. Donham, 236 Mass. 10 , 127 N.E. 537 , 539, it is said: "If the plaintiff's intestate was intoxicated at the time of the accident, this alone does not prevent her maintaining this action and the jury were so instructed; but if his intoxication contributed to the injury in any degree, sh 1948The petition does not allege that the plaintiff has new evidence to establish this fact, the evidence on the former trial does not establish it, and it would be useless to have a new trial without evidence to show that the defendant's injuries were caused in whole or in part by his intoxication." In Labrecque v. Donham, 236 Mass. 10 , 127 N.E. 537 , 539, it is said: "If the plaintiff's intestate was intoxicated at the time of the accident, this alone does not prevent her maintaining this action and the jury were so instructed; but if his intoxication contributed to the injury in any degree, sh | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Bright v. Stettenbauer
neutral
2 sentences1948The petition does not allege that the plaintiff has new evidence to establish this fact, the evidence on the former trial does not establish it, and it would be useless to have a new trial without evidence to show that the defendant's injuries were caused in whole or in part by his intoxication." In Labrecque v. Donham, 236 Mass. 10 , 127 N.E. 537 , 539, it is said: "If the plaintiff's intestate was intoxicated at the time of the accident, this alone does not prevent her maintaining this action and the jury were so instructed; but if his intoxication contributed to the injury in any degree, sh 1948The petition does not allege that the plaintiff has new evidence to establish this fact, the evidence on the former trial does not establish it, and it would be useless to have a new trial without evidence to show that the defendant's injuries were caused in whole or in part by his intoxication." In Labrecque v. Donham, 236 Mass. 10 , 127 N.E. 537 , 539, it is said: "If the plaintiff's intestate was intoxicated at the time of the accident, this alone does not prevent her maintaining this action and the jury were so instructed; but if his intoxication contributed to the injury in any degree, sh | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Brock v. Southwick
neutral
1 sentence1880Where the vendee gives his note for the purchase money, and takes a deed with general warranty, and there is no fraud on the part of the vendor, nor ignorance on the part of the vendee as to a defect in the title, the vendee cannot successfully resist the payment of the note unless he has been evicted; proof of a paramount outstanding title in a third person is no defense. [Brock v. Southwick, 10 Tex. 65 ; Baldridge v. Cook, 27 Tex. 565 .] Affirmed. | 1 | 1880–1880 |
Baldridge v. Cook
green
1 sentence1880Where the vendee gives his note for the purchase money, and takes a deed with general warranty, and there is no fraud on the part of the vendor, nor ignorance on the part of the vendee as to a defect in the title, the vendee cannot successfully resist the payment of the note unless he has been evicted; proof of a paramount outstanding title in a third person is no defense. [Brock v. Southwick, 10 Tex. 65 ; Baldridge v. Cook, 27 Tex. 565 .] Affirmed. | 1 | 1880–1880 |
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.