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 2001–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grapevine Excavation v. Maryland Lloydsgreen2 sentences2017App. 2000) (on reh’g en bane) (“When a statute is reenacted without material change, it is generally presumed that the legislature knew and adopted or approved the interpretation placed on the original act, and intended that the new enactment should receive the same construction as the old one.”); see also Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. 2000) (“It is a firmly established statutory construction rule that once appellate courts construe a statute and the Legislature reenacts or codifies that statute without substantial change, we presume that the Legislature h 2010See also Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex.2000) (“It is a firmly established statutory construction rule that once appellate courts construe a statute and the Legislature re-enacts or codifies that statute without substantial change, we presume that the Legislature has adopted the judicial interpretation.”); Am. | 5 | 8 |
Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc.green1 sentence2015Under this doctrine, if a court or an administrative agency (such as the Commissioner) has given a longstanding construction to an ambiguous statute, and in the face of this longstanding construction, the Legislature reenacts the statute without substantial change, the Legislature is presumed to have been familiar with the construction and adopted it. 22 See Tex. Dept. of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 176 (Tex. 2004); see also Transcon. | 1 | 1 |
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palaciosgreen2 sentences2010Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex.2001) (noting that courts presume the Legislature is aware of the existing state of the law and court decisions when it enacts statutes); Tex. Emp. 2010Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex.2001) (noting that courts presume the Legislature is aware of the existing state of the law and court decisions when it enacts statutes); Tex. Emp. | 1 | 1 |
Ector County v. Stringergreen2 sentences2001See Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477 , 479-80 n. 4 (Tex.1992); Robinson v. Central Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex.1989); First Employees Ins. 2001See Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477 , 479-80 n. 4 (Tex.1992); Robinson v. Central Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex.1989); First Employees Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Central Texas MHMR Centergreen2 sentences2001See Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477 , 479-80 n. 4 (Tex.1992); Robinson v. Central Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex.1989); First Employees Ins. 2001See Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477 , 479-80 n. 4 (Tex.1992); Robinson v. Central Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex.1989); First Employees Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Railroad Commission v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 228 . 18 Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 632 . 19 See Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d I , 5 (Tex. 2000) ("It is a firmly established statutory construction rule that once appellate courts construe a statute and the Legislature re-enacts or codifies that statute without substantial change, we presume that the Legislature has adopted the judicial interpretation."). 2016Id. at 228 . 18 Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 632 . 19 See Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d I , 5 (Tex. 2000) ("It is a firmly established statutory construction rule that once appellate courts construe a statute and the Legislature re-enacts or codifies that statute without substantial change, we presume that the Legislature has adopted the judicial interpretation."). | 2 | 2016–2025 |
United States v. Mead Corp.
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 228 . 18 Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 632 . 19 See Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d I , 5 (Tex. 2000) ("It is a firmly established statutory construction rule that once appellate courts construe a statute and the Legislature re-enacts or codifies that statute without substantial change, we presume that the Legislature has adopted the judicial interpretation."). 2016Id. at 228 . 18 Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 632 . 19 See Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d I , 5 (Tex. 2000) ("It is a firmly established statutory construction rule that once appellate courts construe a statute and the Legislature re-enacts or codifies that statute without substantial change, we presume that the Legislature has adopted the judicial interpretation."). | 2 | 2016–2025 |
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.