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 4 courts 1975–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Maurogreen2 sentences2008See id. at 281-82 . 2008See id. at 281-82 . | 3 | 3 |
Emeritus Corp. v. Highsmithgreen2 sentences2010See Emeritus Corp. v. Highsmith, 211 S.W.3d 321, 330 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2006, pet. denied); Estate of Regis v. Harris County Hosp. 2010See Emeritus Corp. v. Highsmith , 211 S.W.3d 321, 330 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, pet. denied); Estate of Regis v. Harris County Hosp. | 2 | 2 |
John L. Dole, III & Celia E. Dole v. Lsref2 Apex 2, Llcgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., In re K.J.B., 2015 WL 3898065 , at *6; Dole v. LSREF2 APEX 2, LLC, 425 S.W.3d 617, 622 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Consol. | 1 | 1 |
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venturegreen1 sentence2014P. 47.1; Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d at 157 (“We affirm the summary judgment if any of the theories presented to the trial court and preserved for appellate review are meritorious.”). 10 disclosure of otherwise privileged information sixty days before suit is filed, the statute [would] provide[ ] an opportunity for health care providers to investigate claims and possibly settle those with merit at an early stage.” By encouraging pre-suit negotiation and settlement, the authorization requirement furthers an original goal of the MLIIA, resolving claims before suit is filed. | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 392 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (opinion on rehearing). 1992Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 392 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Verga v. Stategreen1 sentence1975See Robison v. State, 280 S. W. 776 (Tex. Crim. | 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 Department of Transportation v. Sefzik
green
2 sentences2021But this authorization is not a waiver of governmental immunity to entertain such a claim—the UDJA generally “does not enlarge the trial court’s jurisdiction but is ‘merely a procedural device for deciding cases already within a court’s jurisdiction.’” Hegar v. CSG Forte Payments, No. 03-19-00325- CV, 2020 WL 7233605 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing and quoting Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 , 621–22 (Tex. 2011)). 2020But this authorization is not a waiver of sovereign immunity to entertain such a claim—the UDJA generally “does not enlarge the trial court’s jurisdiction but is ‘merely a procedural device for deciding cases already within a court’s jurisdiction.’” Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d at 621–22 (adding that “we have consistently stated” that principle (quoting Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d at 388 )). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
In Re Collins
green
1 sentence2024Nor does it promote the purposes we’ve previously said the authorization requirement promotes—to “provide[] an opportunity for health care providers to investigate claims and possibly settle those with merit at an early stage,” and to “reduc[e] the costs of health care liability claims” by enabling provider defendants to obtain relevant medical records from non-party health care providers without having to rely on the “use of subpoenas or other formal mandatory processes.” Collins, 286 S.W.3d at 916–18. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Sawyer Trust
green
1 sentence2020But this authorization is not a waiver of sovereign immunity to entertain such a claim—the UDJA generally “does not enlarge the trial court’s jurisdiction but is ‘merely a procedural device for deciding cases already within a court’s jurisdiction.’” Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d at 621–22 (adding that “we have consistently stated” that principle (quoting Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d at 388 )). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.