12 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phillips v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2018See Phillips, 820 S.W.2d at 790 . 2018See Phillips, 820 S.W.2d at 790 . | 2 | 2 |
Light v. Centel Cellular Co. of Texasgreen2 sentences2002"Consideration for a promise, by either the employee or the employer in an at-will employment, cannot be dependent on a period of continued employment." Light v. Centel Cellular Co. of Texas , 883 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex. 1994). 2002“Consideration for a promise, by either the employee or the employer in an at-will employment, cannot be dependent on a period of continued employment.” Light v. Centel Cellular Co. of Texas, 883 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex. 1994). | 2 | 2 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgwaygreen1 sentence2026See Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004) (explaining that if nonmovants fail to produce more than scintilla of evidence establishing existence of challenged elements to defeat no-evidence motion, there is no need to analyze whether movant’s proof satisfies traditional summary-judgment burden by creating genuine issue of material fact). | 1 | 1 |
City of Galveston v. Graygreen1 sentence2025Co., 514 S.W.3d 770, 776 (Tex. App.— 26 Austin 2017, no pet.) (“Because the trial court has yet to enter an order that grants or denies the Agency’s jurisdictional challenge, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.”); see also City of Galveston v. Gray, 93 S.W.3d 587, 589 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (“[I]nstead, the trial court specifically stated it was not ruling on the pleas to the jurisdiction, but was granting Gray’s motion for continuance and allowing discovery. | 1 | 1 |
West Travis County Public Utility Agency, on Behalf of Itself and Its Directors, Larry Fox, Michael Murphy, Ray Whisenant, Bill Goodwin, and Scott Roberts, in Their Official Capacities v. CCNG Development Co., L.P.green1 sentence2025Co., 514 S.W.3d 770, 776 (Tex. App.— 26 Austin 2017, no pet.) (“Because the trial court has yet to enter an order that grants or denies the Agency’s jurisdictional challenge, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.”); see also City of Galveston v. Gray, 93 S.W.3d 587, 589 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (“[I]nstead, the trial court specifically stated it was not ruling on the pleas to the jurisdiction, but was granting Gray’s motion for continuance and allowing discovery. | 1 | 1 |
Gardner v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See id. at 295-96 . | 1 | 1 |
City of Roanoke v. Town of Westlakegreen1 sentence2003See City of Roanoke , 111 S.W.3d at 622 n.5. 4: Having determined that Gray’s motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted because the ordinances purportedly annexing the Property are void, we will not address Gray’s arguments regarding Ordinance Number 270. | 1 | 1 |
Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp.green1 sentence2003See Amstadt , 919 S.W.2d at 652 (res judicata is proper only if the claim in the subsequent action was or could have been raised in the first action). | 1 | 1 |
Sharp v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Sharp , 707 S.W.2d at 614 . 1999See Sharp , 707 S.W.2d at 614 . | 1 | 1 |
Construction & General Labor Union, Local No. 688 v. Stephensongreen2 sentences1978Construction and General Labor Union, Local No. 688 v. Stephenson, 148 Tex. 434, 437-38 , 225 S.W.2d 958, 960 (1950). 1978Construction and General Labor Union, Local No. 688 v. Stephenson, 148 Tex. 434, 437-38 , 225 S.W.2d 958, 960 (1950). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patricia Skelton v. Guy James Gray
green
1 sentence2020The court of appeals reversed, holding that because Skelton’s conviction had been vacated, the Peeler doctrine did not apply. 547 S.W.3d at 277 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.