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 1996–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ingram Industries, Inc. v. U.S. Bolt Manufacturing, Inc.green2 sentences2021Therefore, the question of whether the Code’s “reasonable diligence” requirement was met prior to service on the Secretary of State may be determined by reviewing the “record as a whole.” See, e.g., Ingram Indus., 121 S.W.3d at 34 (“The record as a whole . . . may be considered to determine whether the reasonable-diligence requirement is satisfied.”). 2012See, e.g., Ingram Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Bolt Mfg., Inc., 121 S.W.3d 31, 34 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“The record as a whole ... may be considered to determine whether the reasonable-diligence requirement is satisfied.”) (citing G.F.S. | 5 | 5 |
G.F.S. Ventures, Inc. v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2012Ventures, Inc. v. Harris, 934 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)); Maddison Dual Fuels, Inc. v. S. Union Co., 944 S.W.2d 735, 738 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) (“[W]e may look to the entire record for evidence of diligence.”). 2012Ventures, Inc. v. Harris, 934 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)); Maddison Dual Fuels, Inc. v. S. Union Co., 944 S.W.2d 735, 738 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) (―[W]e may look to the entire record for evidence of diligence.‖). | 4 | 4 |
Maddison Dual Fuels, Inc. v. Southern Union Co.green2 sentences2012Ventures, Inc. v. Harris, 934 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)); Maddison Dual Fuels, Inc. v. S. Union Co., 944 S.W.2d 735, 738 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) (“[W]e may look to the entire record for evidence of diligence.”). 2012Ventures, Inc. v. Harris, 934 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)); Maddison Dual Fuels, Inc. v. S. Union Co., 944 S.W.2d 735, 738 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) (―[W]e may look to the entire record for evidence of diligence.‖). | 2 | 2 |
Ortiz, Gabriela (1997 Chrysler LHS 2C3HC56FXVH554673) v. Texas, the State Ofgreen2 sentences2003One 1991 Chevrolet Blazer v. State, 905 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no pet.); see also Ortiz v. State, 24 S.W.3d 603, 605-06 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (finding delay in service of process in a forfeiture case to violate the reasonable-diligence requirement). 2003One 1991 Chevrolet Blazer v. State , 905 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1995, no pet.); see also Ortiz v. State , 24 S.W.3d 603 , 605 - 06 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (finding delay in service of process in a forfeiture case to violate the reasonable-diligence requirement). | 2 | 2 |
One 1991 Chevrolet Blazer v. Stategreen2 sentences2003One 1991 Chevrolet Blazer v. State, 905 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no pet.); see also Ortiz v. State, 24 S.W.3d 603, 605-06 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (finding delay in service of process in a forfeiture case to violate the reasonable-diligence requirement). 2003One 1991 Chevrolet Blazer v. State , 905 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1995, no pet.); see also Ortiz v. State , 24 S.W.3d 603 , 605 - 06 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (finding delay in service of process in a forfeiture case to violate the reasonable-diligence requirement). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Arensongreen1 sentence2026See Brown, 571 S.W.3d at 334–36. | 1 | 1 |
Proulx v. Wellsgreen1 sentence2023See Proulx, 235 S.W.3d at 216 (“In assessing diligence, the relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiff acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances and was diligent up until the time the defendant 8 was served.”); Alspini, 315 S.W.3d at 150 (“A plaintiff has a duty to exercise diligence from the date suit is filed until the defendant is actually served.”). | 1 | 1 |
El Paso Independent School District v. Alspinigreen1 sentence2023See Proulx, 235 S.W.3d at 216 (“In assessing diligence, the relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiff acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances and was diligent up until the time the defendant 8 was served.”); Alspini, 315 S.W.3d at 150 (“A plaintiff has a duty to exercise diligence from the date suit is filed until the defendant is actually served.”). | 1 | 1 |
Binner v. Limestone Countygreen1 sentence2012See Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 633 ; Olivas, 323 S.W.3d at 274 ; Binner v. Limestone Cnty., 129 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. denied); Christian v. Christian, 985 S.W.2d 513, 514-15 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.); see also Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equipmentgreen1 sentence2012See Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 633 ; Olivas, 323 S.W.3d at 274 ; Binner v. Limestone Cnty., 129 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. denied); Christian v. Christian, 985 S.W.2d 513, 514-15 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.); see also Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Christian v. Christiangreen1 sentence2012See Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 633 ; Olivas, 323 S.W.3d at 274 ; Binner v. Limestone Cnty., 129 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. denied); Christian v. Christian, 985 S.W.2d 513, 514-15 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.); see also Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
General Office Outfitters, Inc. v. Holtgreen1 sentence1996See KWL Constr., 877 S.W.2d at 451 ; General Office Outfitters, Inc. v. Holt, 670 S.W.2d 748, 749 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1984, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
RWL Construction, Inc. v. Ericksongreen1 sentence1996See KWL Constr., 877 S.W.2d at 451 ; General Office Outfitters, Inc. v. Holt, 670 S.W.2d 748, 749 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1984, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Olivas
green
1 sentence2012See Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 633 ; Olivas, 323 S.W.3d at 274 ; Binner v. Limestone Cnty., 129 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. denied); Christian v. Christian, 985 S.W.2d 513, 514-15 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.); see also Tex. R. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Collins v. State
green
1 sentence2001In Collins v. State, 762 S.W.2d 670 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1988, no pet.), the court of appeals cited Article 36.27 and the reasonable diligence standard. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.