12 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holley v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2015FAM.CODE § 262.112(b) (" In any proceeding in which an expedited hearing is held under Subsection (a), the department, parent, guardian, or other party to the proceeding is entitled to an expedited appeal on a ruling by a court that the child may not be removed from the child's home." ) (emphasis added). [9] See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976). 2015FAM.CODE § 262.112(b) (" In any proceeding in which an expedited hearing is held under Subsection (a), the department, parent, guardian, or other party to the proceeding is entitled to an expedited appeal on a ruling by a court that the child may not be removed from the child's home." ) (emphasis added). [9] See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976). | 3 | 3 |
Gulf Energy Pipeline Co. v. Garciagreen2 sentences2020Moreover, because “[t]he Property Code implements a legislative policy designed to avoid the delays that occur in court proceedings” and “provides condemnors a substantial right to an expedited hearing and possession of the easement immediately after the commissioners file their findings,” mandamus relief is appropriate if the trial court has issued void orders that delay “wrongfully halted proceedings over which another body has jurisdiction.” Gulf Energy Pipeline Co., 884 S.W.2d at 824 . 2015See In re Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist., No. 12-14-00329-CV, 2015 WL 545783, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 11, 2015, orig. proceeding [pet. filed]); In re ETC Katy Pipeline, Ltd., 276 S.W.3d 562, 563 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (op. denying reh’g); see also Gulf Energy Pipeline Co. v. Garcia, 884 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ) (holding that the property code “provides condemnors a substantial right to an expedited hearing and possession of the easement immediately after the commissioners file their findings” and the “failure to issue mandamus would vitiate and rend | 2 | 4 |
Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem Abrahamgreen2 sentences2018Id. §§ 27.004, .009; Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294, 295 (Tex. 2016). 2017Id. §§ 27.004, .009; Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294, 295 (Tex. 2016). | 2 | 2 |
in Re: Tarrant Regional Water District, a Water Control and Improvement Districtgreen1 sentence2015See In re Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist., No. 12-14-00329-CV, 2015 WL 545783, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 11, 2015, orig. proceeding [pet. filed]); In re ETC Katy Pipeline, Ltd., 276 S.W.3d 562, 563 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (op. denying reh’g); see also Gulf Energy Pipeline Co. v. Garcia, 884 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ) (holding that the property code “provides condemnors a substantial right to an expedited hearing and possession of the easement immediately after the commissioners file their findings” and the “failure to issue mandamus would vitiate and rend | 1 | 1 |
In Re Etc Katy Pipeline, Ltd.green1 sentence2015See In re Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist., No. 12-14-00329-CV, 2015 WL 545783, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 11, 2015, orig. proceeding [pet. filed]); In re ETC Katy Pipeline, Ltd., 276 S.W.3d 562, 563 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (op. denying reh’g); see also Gulf Energy Pipeline Co. v. Garcia, 884 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ) (holding that the property code “provides condemnors a substantial right to an expedited hearing and possession of the easement immediately after the commissioners file their findings” and the “failure to issue mandamus would vitiate and rend | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zajaczkowski v. Zajaczkowska
green
2 sentences2010In Zajaczkowski , the United States District Court of Maryland determined that, given the premium on the expeditious resolution of Hague Convention controversies, it would treat Hague Convention petitions like federal applications for writs of habeas corpus and would “hear evidence and argument in summary fashion and decide the case at the hearing, unless, for good cause shown, it finds reason for delay.” [7] Zajaczkowski , 932 F. Supp. at 132 . 2010In Zajaczkowski, the United States District Court of Maryland determined that, given the premium on the expeditious resolution of Hague Convention controversies, it would treat Hague Convention petitions like federal applications for writs of habeas corpus and would “hear evidence and argument in summary fashion and decide the ease at the hearing, unless, for good cause shown, it finds reason for delay.” 7 Zajac-zkowski, 932 F.Supp. at 132 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Crosstex Energy Services, L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018In making this determination, we consider the four factors listed by the Supreme Court of Texas in Crosstex Energy Services: (1) the plain meaning of the statute; (2) the presence or absence of specific consequences for noncompliance; (3) the purpose of the statute; and (4) the consequences that result from each possible interpretation. 430 S.W.3d at 392 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.