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 3 courts 1992–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frank v. Bear, Stearns & Co.green2 sentences2009Stat. Ann. art. 581 — 33A(1)—(2) (person who offers or sells a security in violation of the act is liable to the person buying the security from him) (West Supp. 2008); see also Frank v. Bear, 11 S.W.3d 380, 383 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (to impose seller liability under article 581-33A(2), plaintiff must be in privity with defendant — i.e., plaintiff must have bought his securities from defendant whom plaintiff is suing). . 2009Stat. Ann. art. 581-33A(1)-(2) (person who offers or sells a security in violation of the act is liable to the person buying the security from him) (West Supp. 2008); see also Frank v. Bear , 11 S.W.3d 380, 383 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (to impose seller liability under article 581-33A(2), plaintiff must be in privity with defendant--i.e., plaintiff must have bought his securities from defendant whom plaintiff is suing). 11. | 3 | 3 |
Lewis v. Caseygreen2 sentences2011See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-51 , 116 S.Ct. at 2179-80 . 2011See Lewis , 518 U.S. at 350-51 , 97 S.Ct. at 2179-80 . | 2 | 2 |
Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLPgreen2 sentences2011See Wolfe, 486 F.3d at 1126 ; Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP, 40 Cal.4th 780 , 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 152 P.3d 416, 419 (2007). 2011See Wolfe , 486 F.3d at 1126 ; Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP , 152 P.3d 416, 419 (Cal. 2007). | 2 | 2 |
Burton H. Wolfe v. Ronald M. George, Chief Justice Deborah Silvagreen2 sentences2011See Wolfe , 486 F.3d at 1125-26 . 2011See Wolfe , 486 F.3d at 1126 ; Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP , 152 P.3d 416, 419 (Cal. 2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bradygreen2 sentences1992See State v. Body, 118 S.W. 128 (Tex. 1909) (savings clause of a repealing statute is strictly construed). 1992See State v. Brady, 118 S.W. 128 (Tex. 1909) (savings clause of a repealing statute is strictly construed). | 2 | 2 |
Willock v. Buigreen1 sentence2019Pleadings must “[c]onsist of a statement in plain and concise language of the [party]’s cause of action.” Willock v. Bui, 734 S.W.2d 390, 392 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (first alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted); see also TEX. | 1 | 1 |
Osterberg v. Pecagreen1 sentence2019As previously addressed, because the trial court, in its charge to the jury, did not define the term “request” and Nowlin did not object to the lack of a definition, we measure the sufficiency of the evidence against the commonly-understood meaning of the word “request.” See Graves, 448 S.W.3d at 109 ; Brown, 267 S.W.3d at 323 ; see also Osterberg, 12 S.W.3d at 55 . | 1 | 1 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,450 Steven G. Cooperman v. Individual Inc.green1 sentence2015Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., 171 F.3d 43, 52 (1st § 15. | 1 | 1 |
Bounds v. Smithred1 sentence2011See Lewis , 518 U.S. at 350-51 , 97 S.Ct. at 2179-80 . | 1 | 1 |
Sherman v. Triton Energy Corp.green1 sentence2009Stat. Ann. art. 581-33A(1)-(2) (person who offers or sells a security in violation of the act is liable to the person buying the security from him) (West Supp. 2008); see also Frank v. Bear, 11 S.W.3d 380, 383 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (to impose seller liability under article 581-33A(2), plaintiff must be in privity with defendant—i.e., plaintiff must have bought his securities from defendant whom plaintiff is suing). 12 specific misrepresentation to the losses suffered by each shareholder.11 See Sherman, 124 S.W.3d at 282 ; Houston, 786 S.W.2d at 393 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutschkegreen2 sentences1996State v. Gutschke, 149 Tex. 292 , 233 S.W.2d 446, 448 (1950). 1996State v. Gutschke, 149 Tex. 292 , 233 S.W.2d 446, 448 (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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 10 , 73 S.Ct. .528, No case of the Court, however, has extended this high degree of deference tó a President’s generalized interest in confidentiality. 2016Id. at 10 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Jerry L. Starkey, TBDL, L.P., and PBW Development Corporation v. Glen Graves
green
1 sentence2019As previously addressed, because the trial court, in its charge to the jury, did not define the term “request” and Nowlin did not object to the lack of a definition, we measure the sufficiency of the evidence against the commonly-understood meaning of the word “request.” See Graves, 448 S.W.3d at 109 ; Brown, 267 S.W.3d at 323 ; see also Osterberg, 12 S.W.3d at 55 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kroger Co. v. Brown
green
1 sentence2019As previously addressed, because the trial court, in its charge to the jury, did not define the term “request” and Nowlin did not object to the lack of a definition, we measure the sufficiency of the evidence against the commonly-understood meaning of the word “request.” See Graves, 448 S.W.3d at 109 ; Brown, 267 S.W.3d at 323 ; see also Osterberg, 12 S.W.3d at 55 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
City of Houston v. Howard
green
1 sentence2009Stat. Ann. art. 581-33A(1)-(2) (person who offers or sells a security in violation of the act is liable to the person buying the security from him) (West Supp. 2008); see also Frank v. Bear, 11 S.W.3d 380, 383 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (to impose seller liability under article 581-33A(2), plaintiff must be in privity with defendant—i.e., plaintiff must have bought his securities from defendant whom plaintiff is suing). 12 specific misrepresentation to the losses suffered by each shareholder.11 See Sherman, 124 S.W.3d at 282 ; Houston, 786 S.W.2d at 393 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.