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 2 courts 1965–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. Allied Pharmacy Management, Inc.green2 sentences2007Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 , 156 n. 1 (Tex.2004); Collins v. Allied Pharmacy Mgmt., Inc., 871 S.W.2d 929, 936 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ) (“[E]stoppel is a shield, not a sword.”). 2007Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 , 156 n. 1 (Tex.2004); Collins v. Allied Pharmacy Mgmt., Inc., 871 S.W.2d 929, 936 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ) ("[E]stoppel is a shield, not a sword."). | 3 | 3 |
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venturegreen2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (2004) 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1058 1 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Estoppel ! "#$%&'$( Nature and Application of Estoppel in Pais )*$ %$ (*$$ ( Equitable estoppel is not a cause of action, but + may be asserted as a defensive plea to bar a ,-./,/ ,/ defendant from raising a particular defense. 0 /1- (- 8 Cases that cite this headnote / 23 24 5 )6 )$% 7(2 5 8&$ (2 [3 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (2004) 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1058 1 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Estoppel ! "#$%&'$( Nature and Application of Estoppel in Pais )*$ %$ (*$$ ( Equitable estoppel is not a cause of action, but + may be asserted as a defensive plea to bar a ,-./,/ ,/ defendant from raising a particular defense. 0 /1- (- 8 Cases that cite this headnote / 23 24 5 )6 )$% 7(2 5 8&$ (2 [3 | 2 | 8 |
Brecheisen v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Brecheisen v. State, 4 S.W.3d 761 , 763–65 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Leonard v. Eskewgreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Leonard v. Eskew, 731 S.W.2d 124 , 132 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cowling v. Colligan
green
2 sentences1969Allen v. Winner, supra; Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); Cowling v. Colligan, 158 Tex. 458 , 312 S.W.2d 943 (1958). 1969Allen v. Winner, supra; Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); Cowling v. Colligan, 158 Tex. 458 , 312 S.W.2d 943 (1958). | 2 | 1965–1969 |
Stewart v. Welsh
green
2 sentences1969Allen v. Winner, supra; Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); Cowling v. Colligan, 158 Tex. 458 , 312 S.W.2d 943 (1958). 1969Allen v. Winner, supra; Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); Cowling v. Colligan, 158 Tex. 458 , 312 S.W.2d 943 (1958). | 2 | 1965–1969 |
Allen v. Winner
green
2 sentences1969Allen v. Winner, Tex.Civ.App., 389 S.W.2d 599 , ref., n. r. e. As indicated, acquiescence in prior violations of others has not been shown so as to sustain the defensive plea of waiver. 1969Allen v. Winner, supra; Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); Cowling v. Colligan, 158 Tex. 458 , 312 S.W.2d 943 (1958). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.