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.
12 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coker v. Cokergreen2 sentences2022First, we apply the applicable rules of construction and decide if the contract is ambiguous.” (citing Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983))). 2015While a document’s circumstances are part of the ambiguity analysis, Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 394 , here the circumstances do not push the analysis one way or the other. | 2 | 4 |
Combs v. Health Care Services Corp.green2 sentences2025Corp., 401 S.W.3d at 630 ("[A] precondition to agency deference is ambiguity; 'an agency's opinion cannot change plain language.' There is no ambiguity about the ambiguity requirement, nor with the unassailable rule that agency interpretations cannot contradict statutory text." (quoting Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 747 ) (footnote omitted)). 32 U.S. CONST. arts. 2016Corp., 401 S.W.3d at 630 ("[A] precondition to agency deference is ambiguity; 'an agency's opinion cannot change plain language.' There is no ambiguity about the ambiguity requirement, nor with the unassailable rule that agency interpretations cannot contradict statutory text." (quoting Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 747 ) (footnote omitted)). 32 U.S. CONST. arts. | 2 | 2 |
TGS-NOPEC GEOPHYSICAL CO. v. Combsgreen2 sentences2015The Court pursues NOPEC Geophysical, 340 S.W.3d at 441 (using statutory a backwards approach to the ambiguity analysis: it relies context to eliminate inapplicable meanings of a word in on context, purpose, and canons of construction first to the statute). 2015See TGS– a backwards approach to the ambiguity analysis: it relies NOPEC Geophysical, 340 S.W.3d at 441 (using statutory on context, purpose, and canons of construction first to context to eliminate inapplicable meanings of a word in exclude every possible meaning of the word “supported” except two, then to exclude all but the most narrow the statute). | 2 | 2 |
Cook Composites, Inc. v. Westlake Styrene Corp.green1 sentence2022See Cook Composites, Inc. v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 15 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. dism’d by agr.) (“There are two steps to an ambiguity analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Statered1 sentence2019In making an egregious harm determination, we must consider “the actual degree of harm . . . in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2015See Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc., 237 S.W.3d 338 , 343 & n.8 (Tex. 2007) (noting that Fifth Circuit precedent is persuasive but not binding on this Court) (citing Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tex. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
CareFlite v. Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc.green1 sentence2015See also CareFlite, 418 S.W.3d at 142 (“[W]e have not found[] any authority, primary or persuasive, that stands for the proposition that, if a private entity and a governmental body share a common purpose or objective, the private entity is automatically a governmental body for purposes of the [Act]. | 1 | 1 |
Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc., 237 S.W.3d 338 , 343 & n.8 (Tex. 2007) (noting that Fifth Circuit precedent is persuasive but not binding on this Court) (citing Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tex. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Evanston Insurance Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc.green2 sentences2015See ATOFINA, 256 S.W.3d at 668 . 2015See ATOFINA, 256 S.W.3d at 668 . | 1 | 1 |
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd.green2 sentences2009See Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345, 347 (Tex.2006); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tex.1996). 2009See Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345, 347 (Tex.2006); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tex.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc.green2 sentences2009See Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345, 347 (Tex.2006); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tex.1996). 2009See Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345, 347 (Tex.2006); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tex.1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds
green
2 sentences2025Corp., 401 S.W.3d at 630 ("[A] precondition to agency deference is ambiguity; 'an agency's opinion cannot change plain language.' There is no ambiguity about the ambiguity requirement, nor with the unassailable rule that agency interpretations cannot contradict statutory text." (quoting Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 747 ) (footnote omitted)). 32 U.S. CONST. arts. 2016Corp., 401 S.W.3d at 630 ("[A] precondition to agency deference is ambiguity; 'an agency's opinion cannot change plain language.' There is no ambiguity about the ambiguity requirement, nor with the unassailable rule that agency interpretations cannot contradict statutory text." (quoting Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 747 ) (footnote omitted)). 32 U.S. CONST. arts. | 2 | 2016–2025 |
Ranger Insurance v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Applicability of the Contra Proferentum Doctrine The second certified question asks whether the ambiguity rule governs interpretation of the insurance-coverage provision in the Drilling Contract, given the facts of this case. 728 F.3d at 500 . 2015Applicability of the Contra Proferentum Doctrine The second certified question asks whether the ambiguity rule governs interpretation of the insurance-coverage provision in the Drilling Contract, given the facts of this case. 728 F.3d at 500 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Preston Ridge Financial Services Corp. v. Tyler
green
1 sentence2000See Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393 ; Tyler, 796 S.W.2d at 775 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.