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.
11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2010See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 , 694 n. 3 (Tex.2003); MBP Corp. v. Bd. of Trs. of Galveston Wharves, 297 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). 2010See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor , 106 S.W.3d 692 , 694 n.3 (Tex. 2003); MBP Corp. v. Bd. of Trs. of Galveston Wharves , 297 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Mbp Corp. v. Bd. Trustees Galveston Wharvesgreen2 sentences2010See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 , 694 n. 3 (Tex.2003); MBP Corp. v. Bd. of Trs. of Galveston Wharves, 297 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). 2010See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor , 106 S.W.3d 692 , 694 n.3 (Tex. 2003); MBP Corp. v. Bd. of Trs. of Galveston Wharves , 297 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Hexter v. Prattgreen2 sentences2008See Hexter , 283 S.W. at 658 . 2008See Hexter, 283 S.W. at 658 . | 2 | 2 |
Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Ademajgreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Dinkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Dinkins v. State , 894 S.W.2d 330, 357 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence1985Moore v. State, 672 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no pet.). . | 1 | 1 |
Barber v. Corpus Christi Bank & Trustgreen1 sentence1979The State cites Barber v. Corpus Christi Bank and Trust, 506 S.W.2d 254, 257 (Tex.Civ.App.1974), which held that where the objections were orally dictated objections to the submission of a special issue but the record did not reveal that the transcribed objections were ever presented to the trial judge so that he could endorse his ruling and official signature thereon as required by Rule 272, supra, the objections could not be considered. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority
green
1 sentence1995Clear Creek , 589 S.W.2d at 678 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hillman v. Hillman
green
2 sentences1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is *613 that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex. Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S. W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S. W.2d 143 . 1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S.W.2d 143 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Jenkins v. Tanner
green
2 sentences1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is *613 that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex. Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S. W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S. W.2d 143 . 1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S.W.2d 143 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Masterson v. Bouldin
green
2 sentences1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is *613 that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex. Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S. W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S. W.2d 143 . 1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S.W.2d 143 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Hillman v. Hillman
green
2 sentences1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is *613 that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex. Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S. W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S. W.2d 143 . 1960However, while such is generally stated to be the rule, there are exceptions and one exception is that in analogy to the rule that a party may prove the truth of particular facts in direct contradiction of the testimony of his witness, he may disprove facts stated in a document introduced by him. 20 Amer.Jur., § 915, p. 771; Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301 , writ ref.; Jenkins v. Tanner, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 167 , no writ hist.; Hillman v. Hillman, Tex.Com.App., 138 Tex. 111 , 157 S.W.2d 143 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Springfield Road
neutral
1 sentence1924In re Springfield Road, 73 Pa. 127, 129 . [2] In arriving at this conclusion, we have only given the language of this statute that meaning which renders it harmonious with the purpose of the Legislature in enacting same, rather than to give it that meaning which would defeat such purpose, in this respect observing a well-recognized and generally applied rule of construction to he adhered to in determining the meaning of a legislative enactment. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.