facts constituting violation (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

facts constituting violation in Texas

11 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1919–2014 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Blissgreen
tex · 1963 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
1 sentence

1979Accordingly, we are of the opin *208 ion, construing Guin’s and Peden’s pleadings liberally as we are required to do, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bliss, 368 S.W.2d 594, 599 (Tex.1963), that they have adequately pled the facts constituting a violation of Article 6701d, section 93(a).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds green
scotus · 2010
2 sentences

2014We also note that the Supreme Court indicated in Reynolds that the “inquiry notice” standard could not be used to replace an actual showing of when a hypothetically reasonably diligent claimant would have discovered the facts constituting a violation, though it could “be useful to the extent [it] identif[ies] a time when the facts would have prompted a reasonably diligent plaintiff to begin investigating.” --- U.S. at ---, 130 S. Ct. at 1798 . 63 A different limitations period may apply if the buyer has made a rescission offer under the TSA.

2012We also note that the Supreme Court indicated in Reynolds that the "inquiry notice” standard could not be used to replace an actual showing of when a hypothetically reasonably diligent claimant would have discovered the facts constituting a violation, though it could “be useful to the extent [it] identifies] a time when the facts would have prompted a reasonably diligent plaintiff to begin investigating.” — U.S. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 1798 . 63 .

22012–2014
Hexter v. Pratt green
texcommnapp · 1928
2 sentences

2008Id. at 693 .

2008Id. at 655 .

22008–2008
Buck v. De Shazo green
texapp · 1928
1 sentence

1942The statement under the proposition immediately preceding this one supports the findings. 10 Tex.Jur. page 427, Sec. 245, states applicable rule of law: “Provisions limiting the time for performance may be waived, even where time is of the essence of the contract * * The legal effect of such indulgencies as those practised by the Mitchells and Bag- getts toward Norris is clearly and fully set forth by this court in an opinion by Judge Funderburk in Buck v. DeShazo, Tex.Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 878 .

11942–1942
Cumming v. Chilson neutral
texapp · 1924
1 sentence

1940Cumming v. Chilson, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W. 1099 .

11940–1940
Winn v. Houston Building & Loan Ass'n neutral
texapp · 1931
1 sentence

1935Winn v. Houston Building & Loan Association (Tex.Civ.App.) 45 S.W.(2d) 631 (writ refused); McCaskey v. McCall (Tcx.Civ.App.) 226 S.W. 432, 434 .

11935–1935
Coffey v. United States green
scotus · 1886
2 sentences

1935In Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S. 436 , 6 S. Ct. 437 , 29 L.

1935In Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S. 436 , 6 S. Ct. 437 , 29 L.

11935–1935
McCaskey v. McCall neutral
texapp · 1920
1 sentence

1935Winn v. Houston Building & Loan Association (Tex.Civ.App.) 45 S.W.(2d) 631 (writ refused); McCaskey v. McCall (Tcx.Civ.App.) 226 S.W. 432, 434 .

11935–1935
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. McGlamory green
· 1896
1 sentence

1920Railway Co. v. Lynch, 208 S.W. 721; Railway Co. v. McGlamory, 89 Tex. 635 , 35 S.W. 1058 .

11920–1920
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Benjamin green
tex · 1915
2 sentences

1919The defendant sought to have-grouped and submitted to the jury the facts constituting its defense, with instructions from the court to the jury as to how to answer questions 6, 7, and 8. [4] Appellees insist that the court properly refused these requested charges, because they take from the jury the issue of proximate cause, and cite as supporting this position Wells Fargo & Co. v. Benjamin, 107 Tex. 331 , 179 S. W. 515 ; G., C. & S. F. Ry.

1919Appellees insist that the court properly refused these requested charges, because they take from the jury the issue of proximate cause, and cite as supporting this position Wells Fargo Co. v. Benjamin, 107 Tex. 331 , 179 S.W. 515 ; G., C.

11919–1919
Coultress v. City of San Antonio green
tex · 1916
2 sentences

1919The defendant sought to have-grouped and submitted to the jury the facts constituting its defense, with instructions from the court to the jury as to how to answer questions 6, 7, and 8. [4] Appellees insist that the court properly refused these requested charges, because they take from the jury the issue of proximate cause, and cite as supporting this position Wells Fargo & Co. v. Benjamin, 107 Tex. 331 , 179 S. W. 515 ; G., C. & S. F. Ry.

1919Appellees insist that the court properly refused these requested charges, because they take from the jury the issue of proximate cause, and cite as supporting this position Wells Fargo Co. v. Benjamin, 107 Tex. 331 , 179 S.W. 515 ; G., C.

11919–1919
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Mangham green
texapp · 1902
1 sentence

1919Co. v. Mangham, 29 Tex. Civ.

11919–1919

Where else courts name it

NY 572 (1893–2026) OR 116 (1891–2026) CA 43 (1884–2025) LA 38 (1976–2024) FL 32 (1926–2024) WA 29 (1909–2026) MT 22 (1908–2024) ME 16 (1985–2015) IA 16 (1896–2020) IL 12 (1903–2022) NC 12 (1916–1988) TX 11 (1919–2014) OK 11 (1897–2015) AL 10 (1919–1998) KS 9 (1893–1984) MO 8 (1910–1976) ID 7 (1904–2022) MI 6 (1946–2018) GA 6 (1917–2004) PA 5 (1890–1969) VI 5 (1982–2024) AZ 5 (1967–2021) WI 4 (1981–2019) MS 4 (1977–2018) NJ 4 (1941–2002) HI 3 (1996–2024) IN 3 (1893–1923) TN 3 (1937–2011) ND 3 (1911–2000) NV 3 (1952–1998) CO 3 (1925–2015) AR 3 (1966–2014) CT 3 (1992–1996) UT 2 (2003–2014) MD 2 (1976–2002) MN 2 (1918–1962) WV 2 (1899–1925) DE 2 (1915–2025) AK 2 (1968–2024) MA 2 (1994–1996) KY 2 (1916–1917) SD 2 (1972–2015)

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