grandfather clause in Texas

12 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2011 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
W.H v. Inc. v. Associates Housing Finance, LLCgreen texapp · 2001 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Housing Fin., LLC, 43 S.W.3d 83, 93 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied)(describing language providing that a statute did not “affect or change the classification of a manufactured home” if it “was permanently affixed to real property before January 1, 1996” as a grandfather clause); Tex. Dep’t of Banking v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass’n, 27 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex.App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied)(describing language providing that an “investment . . . included in a plan approved before the effective date of this Act . . . may continue in effect” as a grandfather clause). 2011Housing Fin., LLC, 43 S.W.3d 83, 93 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied)(describing language providing that a statute did not “affect or *369 change the classification of a manufactured home” if it “was permanently affixed to real property before January 1, 1996” as a grandfather clause); Tex. Dep’t of Banking v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass’n, 27 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied)(describing language providing that an “investment ... included in a plan approved before the effective date of this Act ... may continue in effect” as a grandfather clause).	3	3
Texas Department of Banking v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass'ngreen texapp · 2000 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Housing Fin., LLC, 43 S.W.3d 83, 93 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied)(describing language providing that a statute did not “affect or change the classification of a manufactured home” if it “was permanently affixed to real property before January 1, 1996” as a grandfather clause); Tex. Dep’t of Banking v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass’n, 27 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex.App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied)(describing language providing that an “investment . . . included in a plan approved before the effective date of this Act . . . may continue in effect” as a grandfather clause). 2011Housing Fin., LLC, 43 S.W.3d 83, 93 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied)(describing language providing that a statute did not “affect or *369 change the classification of a manufactured home” if it “was permanently affixed to real property before January 1, 1996” as a grandfather clause); Tex. Dep’t of Banking v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass’n, 27 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied)(describing language providing that an “investment ... included in a plan approved before the effective date of this Act ... may continue in effect” as a grandfather clause).	3	3
United States v. An Article of Drug \Bentex Ulcerine\""green · 1972 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir. 1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new “effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713 , 49 burden, Southwestern was required to provide all of the information requested in the Commission’s preliminary order, including the information related to the level of service provided to customers over the years, in order to show that it had not violated the terms of the exception. 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	2	2
Hagans v. Lavinegreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir. 1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new “effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713 , 49 burden, Southwestern was required to provide all of the information requested in the Commission’s preliminary order, including the information related to the level of service provided to customers over the years, in order to show that it had not violated the terms of the exception. 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	2	2
United States v. Allan Drug Corporation, (Two Cases)green ca10 · 1966 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir. 1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new “effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713 , 49 burden, Southwestern was required to provide all of the information requested in the Commission’s preliminary order, including the information related to the level of service provided to customers over the years, in order to show that it had not violated the terms of the exception. 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	2
United States v. 1,048,000 CAPSULES, MORE OR LESS, ETC.green txsd · 1972 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	1
Kanarek v. Superior Court of Californiagreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	1
Ruggiero v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	1
Hixon v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999Id . at 305; see also Hixon , 523 S.W.2d 711 (upholding city ordinance prohibiting sale of all merchandise on city streets except flowers and ice cream).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Bloom v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists green tex · 1973 2 sentences 1978Cf. Bloom v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 492 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. 1973) (Board may not impose additional requirements for applicant under the grandfather clause). 1978We believe, therefore, the Board’s rule constitutes the imposition on subdoctoral personnel of a requirement not contemplated by the statute. -Cf. Bloom v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 492 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. 1973) (Board may not impose additional requirements for applicant under the grandfather clause).	3	1978–1980
United States v. 1,048,000 green · 1974 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	2008–2008
Allan Drug Corp. v. United States green scotus · 1966 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	2008–2008
In re Reese green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	2008–2008
Honeywell Inc. v. United States green cc · 1981 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5 2008See, e.g., United States v. An Article of Drug (Bentex Ulcerine), 469 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1972) (describing grandfather clause in Food and Drug Act exempting certain drugs from new "effectiveness” requirements), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 2772 , 37 L.Ed.2d 397 (1973); United States v. Allan Drug Corp., 357 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1966) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 899 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); United States v. 1,048,000 Capsules (Afrodex), 347 F.Supp. 768, 770 (S.D.Tex.1972) (same), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir.1974); Honeywell Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 5	1	2008–2008
City of New Orleans v. Dukes green scotus · 1976 1 sentence 1999Id. at 305 ; see The Honorable Bob Turner - Page 8 (X-0145) also Hixon, 523 S.W.2d 71 l(upholding city ordinance prohibiting sale of all merchandise on city streets except flowers and ice cream).	1	1999–1999
George v. Arizona Corporation Commission green ariz · 1958 2 sentences 1970Moreover the time requirement for filing for license under the grandfather clause is mandatory. 4 A.L.R.2d 690 states the rule thusly: “Ordinarily, if the grandfather clause specifies a time limit for filing a claim to the privilege conferred, the failure to file the claim within the time specified will be fatal * * * To the same effect is 33 Am.Jur.1969 Supp. p. 75; George v. Arizona Corp. Comm., 83 Ariz. 387 , 322 P.2d 369 ; Meads v. Human, 84 Okl. 82 , 202 P. 797 . 1970Moreover the time requirement for filing for license under the grandfather clause is mandatory. 4 A.L.R.2d 690 states the rule thusly: “Ordinarily, if the grandfather clause specifies a time limit for filing a claim to the privilege conferred, the failure to file the claim within the time specified will be fatal * * * To the same effect is 33 Am.Jur.1969 Supp. p. 75; George v. Arizona Corp. Comm., 83 Ariz. 387 , 322 P.2d 369 ; Meads v. Human, 84 Okl. 82 , 202 P. 797 .	1	1970–1970
Meads v. Human green okla · 1921 2 sentences 1970Moreover the time requirement for filing for license under the grandfather clause is mandatory. 4 A.L.R.2d 690 states the rule thusly: “Ordinarily, if the grandfather clause specifies a time limit for filing a claim to the privilege conferred, the failure to file the claim within the time specified will be fatal * * * To the same effect is 33 Am.Jur.1969 Supp. p. 75; George v. Arizona Corp. Comm., 83 Ariz. 387 , 322 P.2d 369 ; Meads v. Human, 84 Okl. 82 , 202 P. 797 . 1970Moreover the time requirement for filing for license under the grandfather clause is mandatory. 4 A.L.R.2d 690 states the rule thusly: “Ordinarily, if the grandfather clause specifies a time limit for filing a claim to the privilege conferred, the failure to file the claim within the time specified will be fatal * * * To the same effect is 33 Am.Jur.1969 Supp. p. 75; George v. Arizona Corp. Comm., 83 Ariz. 387 , 322 P.2d 369 ; Meads v. Human, 84 Okl. 82 , 202 P. 797 .	1	1970–1970
Alamo Express, Inc. v. Brown Express green texapp · 1950 1 sentence 1963Alamo Express v. Brown Express, supra. The record shows that there has never been such hearing or finding by the Commission covering the towns in question in this suit.	1	1963–1963

Where else courts name it

CA 25 (1962–2024) NM 16 (1998–2021) PA 16 (1942–2026) TN 15 (1976–2013) TX 12 (1963–2011) OH 12 (1990–2025) FL 12 (1963–2010) MA 9 (1949–2009) ME 9 (1970–2015) NH 9 (1979–2006) VA 9 (1975–2022) IL 8 (1955–2025) MD 8 (1957–2007) IN 7 (1989–2013) AL 6 (1977–1998) MI 6 (1973–2021) NJ 6 (1969–2002) WI 5 (1986–2021) MS 5 (1963–2018) NY 5 (1973–1992) LA 5 (1979–2005) GA 5 (1988–2023) WV 4 (1990–2026) NC 4 (1952–1997) WA 3 (2006–2007) OR 3 (1976–2022) MT 3 (1934–1982) MN 3 (1979–1995) VT 3 (2005–2021) KY 2 (1992–1999) NV 2 (1983–1994) CT 2 (1988–2012) SC 2 (1975–2020) WY 2 (2005–2014) OK 2 (1968–2003)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check