85 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
University Interscholastic League v. Buchanangreen2 sentences2023The public-interest exception “allows appellate review of a question of considerable public importance if that question is capable of repetition between either the same parties or other members of the public but for some reason evades appellate review.” University Interscholastic League v. Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, no writ); see also Federal Deposit Ins. 2023Interscholastic League v. Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, no pet.) (recognizing the public interest exception). | 12 | 15 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Nueces Countygreen2 sentences2023The public interest exception “permits judicial review of questions of considerable public importance if the nature of the action makes it capable of repetition and yet prevents effective judicial review.” Id. at 400 (quoting Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d at 767 ). 2023The common element of the public interest exception and the capable of repetition exception “is that the complained of action be capable of repetition yet not effectively reviewable.” Id. (quoting Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d at 767 ). | 10 | 14 |
Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.) (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Houston Chronicle II, 196 S.W.3d at 400 (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Securtec, Inc. v. Cnty. of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803 , 810–11 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (recognizing the public interest exception); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (recognizing the public interest exception); State Farm Mut. 2018See Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co. v. Thomas, 196 S.W.3d 396, 400 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (“until and unless the Texas Supreme Court recognizes the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, it is not a viable legal theory in our jurisdiction”); In re Smith Cty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (also declining to follow the public interest exception until recognized by the Texas Supreme Court). | 8 | 9 |
Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregggreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.) (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Houston Chronicle II, 196 S.W.3d at 400 (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Securtec, Inc. v. Cnty. of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803 , 810–11 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (recognizing the public interest exception); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (recognizing the public interest exception); State Farm Mut. 2015Public Interest Exception The public interest exception “allows appellate review of a question of considerable public importance if that question is capable of repetition between either the same parties or other members of the public, but for some reason evades appellate review.” 11 Securtec, Inc. v. County of Greg, 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-811 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2003, pet. denied). | 7 | 8 |
Quixtar Inc. v. Signature Management Team, LLCgreen2 sentences2015See id. at 35 (noting that court of appeals, in concluding that dismissal was not appropriate, “apparently reasoned that Quixtar’s failure to demonstrate any choice of law issues or docket congestion problems weighed against Michigan as a more favorable forum” and ultimately holding that court of appeals “did not give the trial court’s decision appropriate deference”). 2015Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508–09, 67 S. Ct. at 843 ; Quixtar, 315 S.W.3d at 33–34. | 5 | 10 |
Loan Thi Hoang Ngo v. Son Due Ngogreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.) (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Houston Chronicle II, 196 S.W.3d at 400 (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Securtec, Inc. v. Cnty. of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803 , 810–11 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (recognizing the public interest exception); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (recognizing the public interest exception); State Farm Mut. 2021“The public-interest exception allows appellate review of an issue of considerable public importance if that issue is capable of repetition between either the same parties or other 16 members of the public, but for some reason evades appellate review.” 7 Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Pub. | 5 | 8 |
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbertred2 sentences2023Vinmar, 336 S.W.3d at 676 (citing Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508–09). 2018But “the public interest factors point towards dismissal where the court would be required to ‘untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.’” Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 251 (quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 509 ). | 3 | 15 |
In re Smith Countygreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.) (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Houston Chronicle II, 196 S.W.3d at 400 (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Securtec, Inc. v. Cnty. of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803 , 810–11 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (recognizing the public interest exception); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (recognizing the public interest exception); State Farm Mut. 2018See Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co. v. Thomas, 196 S.W.3d 396, 400 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (“until and unless the Texas Supreme Court recognizes the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, it is not a viable legal theory in our jurisdiction”); In re Smith Cty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (also declining to follow the public interest exception until recognized by the Texas Supreme Court). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Guerragreen2 sentences2010See, e.g. , In re Guerra , 235 S.W.3d 392 , 432 n.198 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007, orig. proceeding) (acknowledging that the supreme court had not yet recognized the public interest exception but applying the exception to hold that a case was not moot); Houston Chronicle Pub. 2010See, e.g., In re Guerra, 235 S.W.3d 392 , 432 n. 198 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2007, orig. proceeding) (acknowledging that the supreme court had not yet recognized the public interest exception but applying the exception to hold that a case was not moot); Houston Chronicle Pub. | 3 | 3 |
In Re the Guardianship of Kellergreen2 sentences2025Interscholastic League, No. 13-06- 00313-CV, 2007 WL 2811833 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 27, 2007, pet. denied); In re Guardianship of Keller, 171 S.W.3d 498 , 501–02 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005), rev’d sub nom., Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2007); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688 , 691–92 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg 2003, no pet.). 52 moot cases. 2007Cockerham v. Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (recognizing public interest exception to the mootness doctrine); In re Guardianship of Keller, 171 S.W.3d 498, 501 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005), rev'd on other grounds, Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.2007) (same); Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-11 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (same); Univ. | 2 | 3 |
Nueces County v. Whitley Trucks, Inc.green2 sentences2007See majority opinion, Part VI subpart 8. [5] See majority opinion note 198. [6] See id. [7] Id. [8] See FDIC v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.1994). [9] Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. Thomas, 196 S.W.3d 396, 400 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) ("The Texas Supreme Court has not yet recognized the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and judicial restraint compels us to wait until that court decides to resolve the split in authority in the intermediate appellate courts."). [10] See Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); Nue 2007At this time, the Texas Supreme Court has as yet not recognized the public-interest exception. (3) In Nueces County v. Whitley Trucks, Inc ., 865 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi, 1993), (4) rev'd sub nom. , FDIC v. Nueces County , 886 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1994), (5) we recognized the public-interest exception, stating: "[T]he present questions concerning the attachment and priority of, and ability to foreclose upon, tax liens when the FDIC holds a lien against the same property in its capacity as a receiver is of considerable public importance. . . ." Id . at 126. | 2 | 3 |
Fiske v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2025We likewise disapprove of the recognition of the availability of the public- interest exception in at least the following cases: City of Georgetown v. Putnam, 646 S.W.3d 61 , 73 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. denied); Port of Corpus Christi, LP v. Port of Corpus Christi Auth. of Nueces County, No. 13-19-00378-CV, 2021 WL 2694772 , at *8 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 1, 2021, no pet.); NextEra Energy, Inc. v. PUC, No. 03-19-00425-CV, 2020 WL 4929778 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 21, 2020, pet. denied); Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-15-00631-CV, 2016 WL 352188 2007See Fiske v. City of Dallas , 220 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.); (6) Tex. Dept. of Public Safety v. LaFleur , 32 S.W.3d 911, 914 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.); (7) but see Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg , 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-11 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (court reviewed the merits pursuant to the public-interest exception, stating: "This case is . . . a matter of public interest because Gregg County is a governmental body that is required to follow the Texas Local Government Code when accepting bids for construction contracts. . . ."). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Laragreen2 sentences2023The public-interest exception “expands the capable-of-repetition exception to include parties other than those involved in the current case” and “allows appellate review of a question of considerable public importance if that question is capable of repetition between either the same parties or other members of the public but for some reason evades appellate review.” City of Austin, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 2651 , at *19 (citing University Interscholastic League v. Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Tex. App.— Austin 1993, no writ)); see also Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (stating th 2023The public-interest exception “expands the capable-of-repetition exception to include parties other than those involved in the current case” and “allows appellate review of a question of considerable public importance if that question is capable of repetition between either the same parties or other members of the public but for some reason evades appellate review.” City of Austin, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 2651 , at *19 (citing University Interscholastic League v. Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Tex. App.— Austin 1993, no writ)); see also Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (stating th | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. LaFleurgreen2 sentences2021Safety v. LaFleur, 32 S.W.3d 911, 914 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.)). 2007See Fiske v. City of Dallas , 220 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.); (6) Tex. Dept. of Public Safety v. LaFleur , 32 S.W.3d 911, 914 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.); (7) but see Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg , 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-11 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (court reviewed the merits pursuant to the public-interest exception, stating: "This case is . . . a matter of public interest because Gregg County is a governmental body that is required to follow the Texas Local Government Code when accepting bids for construction contracts. . . ."). | 2 | 2 |
Francis Schertenleib v. Jerome S. Traumgreen2 sentences2014See Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156, 1165 (2d Cir.1978) (“Swiss law appears to apply .... 2014See Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156, 1165 (2d Cir. 1978) (“Swiss law appears to apply . . . . | 2 | 2 |
| State Ex Rel. Protection of Cockerham v. Cockerhamgreen | 2 | 2 |
In Re ENSCO Offshore International Co.green2 sentences2019ENSCO Offshore Int’l, 311 S.W.3d at 927 ; Mantle Oil & Gas, 426 S.W.3d at 194 . 23 a. 2016See In re ENSCO, 311 S.W.3d at 928 ; In re BPZ Res., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 866, 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding). | 1 | 2 |
Cornyn v. City of Garlandgreen2 sentences2010DELIVERED: May 27, 2010 FOOTNOTES 1: See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.041 (Vernon 2004) (requiring governmental bodies to “give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body”). 2: Meeker subsequently non-suited his claims against de la Garza. 3: To the extent Meeker arguably seeks relief concerning future meetings not relating to de la Garza, Meeker seeks an advisory opinion “that lies outside [our] judicial power.” See Cornyn v. City of Garland , 994 S.W.2d 258, 267 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). 4: In FDIC , the supreme court stated, This 2010Id. | 1 | 2 |
| GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEX. v. Oxy USA, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Duhon v. Gravettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Van Winkle-Hooker Company v. Ricegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Nelsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Meeker v. Tarrant County College Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Laibe Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Adm Investor Services, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Deep Water Slender Wells, Ltd. v. Shell International Exploration & Production, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re BPZ Resources, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Nucor Steel-Texas v. Public Utility Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kopp v. Fair Political Practices Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 490159green | 1 | 1 |
| Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water v. Railroad Commission of Texasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| in Re: State of Texas Ex Rel. Jose R. Rodriguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walker v. Packergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Moralesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Minton v. Perezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kubena v. Hatchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| King v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Hensleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
green
2 sentences2020While Texas –12– courts can apply foreign law, “the public interest factors point towards dismissal where the court would be required to untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.” See Rasul, 2018 WL 6599018 , at *6 (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 251 ). 2018But “the public interest factors point towards dismissal where the court would be required to ‘untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.’” Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 251 (quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 509 ). | 6 | 2013–2020 |
Railroad Commission v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water
green
2 sentences2025In rejecting the appellants’ contention that the public-interest inquiry broadly encompassed certain “traffic-safety concerns” about well operations, the supreme court relied on “[t]he Commission’s purpose” of conserving oil and gas and the fact that “nothing in any of the [RRC’s] enabling acts grants the [RRC] authority over matters related to traffic safety.” Id. at 631-32 . 2025“Public interest” should not be read so expansively, the court held, as to include “any number of concerns impacting the 14 public interest entirely unrelated to the Commission’s express legislative directives.” Id. at 631 . | 4 | 2012–2025 |
Zipp v. Wuemling
green
2 sentences2025Interscholastic League, No. 13-06- 00313-CV, 2007 WL 2811833 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 27, 2007, pet. denied); In re Guardianship of Keller, 171 S.W.3d 498 , 501–02 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005), rev’d sub nom., Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2007); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688 , 691–92 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg 2003, no pet.). 52 moot cases. 2007Cockerham v. Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (recognizing public interest exception to the mootness doctrine); In re Guardianship of Keller, 171 S.W.3d 498, 501 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005), rev'd on other grounds, Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.2007) (same); Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-11 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (same); Univ. | 3 | 2007–2025 |
In Re General Electric Co.
green
2 sentences2020Elec., 271 S.W.3d at 691 . 2010Id. at 691 . | 3 | 2010–2020 |
Kinnard v. Homann
green
2 sentences2008Thus, when the contract was formed, a public interest hearing was the “appropriate means” to obtaining a rate-setting hearing on a petition from a rate that was set “pursuant to a written contract.” Id.; cf. Homann, 750 S.W.2d at 31 . 2008Thus, when the contract was formed, a public interest hearing was the “appropriate means” to obtaining a rate-setting hearing on a petition from a rate that was set “pursuant to a written contract.” Id.; cf. Homann, 750 S.W.2d at 31 . | 3 | 2008–2008 |
in Re Mantle Oil & Gas, LLC
green
2 sentences2019ENSCO Offshore Int’l, 311 S.W.3d at 927 ; Mantle Oil & Gas, 426 S.W.3d at 194 . 23 a. 2016In re Mantle Oil, 426 S.W.3d at 194 (citing In re Gen. | 2 | 2016–2019 |
The State Bar of Texas v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2015This case meets the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine ... 10 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 14 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 14 APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ................................... 2015This case meets the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine ... 10 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 14 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 14 APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ................................... | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Texas Education Agency v. Leeper
green
2 sentences2015Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994). .............................................................................6, 7 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011). ..................................................................... 4, 5 6, 7 Univ. 2015Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994). .............................................................................6, 7 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011). ..................................................................... 4, 5 6, 7 Univ. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich
green
2 sentences2015This case meets the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine ... 10 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 14 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 14 APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ................................... 2015This case meets the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine ... 10 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 14 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 14 APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ................................... | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Sefzik
green
2 sentences2015Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994). .............................................................................6, 7 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011). ..................................................................... 4, 5 6, 7 Univ. 2015Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994). .............................................................................6, 7 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011). ..................................................................... 4, 5 6, 7 Univ. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Sefzik v. Texas Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2015This case meets the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine ... 10 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 14 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 14 APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ................................... 2015This case meets the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine ... 10 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 14 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 14 APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ................................... | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 679 ; see also Tex. Civ. 2014Id. at 679 ; see also TEX . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Sarieddine v. Moussa
green
2 sentences2010Sarieddine, 820 S.W.2d at 843 ; Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 509 , 67 S.Ct. 839 . 2009Id. at 840 . | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| Olson v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| High Plains Nat. Gas Co. v. Railroad Com'n of Tex. green | 2 | 1983–1983 |
| DeFunis v. Odegaard green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Click v. Tyra green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Vinmar Trade Finance, Ltd. v. Utility Trailers De Mexico, S.A. De C.V. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Simcox v. McDermott International, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Spencer v. Kemna green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Yoroshii Investments (Mauritius) PTE. Ltd. v. BP International Ltd. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Reach Academy for Boys & Girls, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Education green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Texas Water Commission v. City of Fort Worth green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co. v. Creekstone Builders, Inc. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT TEAM, LLC v. Quixtar, Inc. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| General Tire, Inc. v. Kepple green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.