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.
10 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2013–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Service Agencygreen2 sentences2023Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227 , 229-30 (Tex. 1993) (holding an attorney’s-fees claim under a prevailing-party statute had become moot along with the underlying claim because the claimant had not prevailed before mootness occurred). 2022Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex. 1993) (distinguishing Camarena v. Texas Employment Commission and holding that an attorney’s-fees claim under a prevailing-party statute had become moot along with the underlying claim because the claimant had not prevailed before mootness occurred). | 2 | 4 |
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hallmangreen2 sentences2022Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2005) (holding that an attorney’s-fees claim based on a statute that allows fee awards to non-prevailing parties remains live even after the underlying claim becomes moot); Speer v. Presbyterian Children's 6 Home & Serv. 2018Co. v. Hallman , 159 S.W.3d 640 , 643 (Tex. 2005) (holding that an attorney's-fees claim based on a statute that allows fee awards to non-prevailing parties remains live even after the underlying claim becomes moot); Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Serv. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Paul Reed Harpergreen2 sentences2025Harper, 562 S.W.3d at 7 . 2023“Whether an attorney’s-fees claim breathes life into an otherwise moot appeal depends first on whether the claimant seeks the fees under a statute that authorizes fees only for a prevailing party or, alternatively, under a statute that permits fees based on equitable principles regardless of who prevails.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
John L. O'Hern, Tina Dooley, Antionette D. Green, and Leslie Perryman v. Khaled Mughrabigreen1 sentence2023O’Hern v. Mughrabi, 579 S.W.3d 594, 600 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (citing Best, 562 S.W.3d at 7 .). “[I]f the party prevailed before the substantive claim became moot, the party’s claim for attorney’s fees under a prevailing- party statute remains a live controversy and a court must consider the claim’s merits to determine whether the party properly prevailed.” Best, 562 S.W.3d at 7 ; see also Camarena v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988) (concluding when the claimants prevailed in the trial court before their underlying claims became moot, their claim for | 1 | 1 |
Texas West Oaks Hospital, LP v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2023Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171, 177 (Tex. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Camarena v. Texas Employment Commissiongreen1 sentence2023O’Hern v. Mughrabi, 579 S.W.3d 594, 600 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (citing Best, 562 S.W.3d at 7 .). “[I]f the party prevailed before the substantive claim became moot, the party’s claim for attorney’s fees under a prevailing- party statute remains a live controversy and a court must consider the claim’s merits to determine whether the party properly prevailed.” Best, 562 S.W.3d at 7 ; see also Camarena v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988) (concluding when the claimants prevailed in the trial court before their underlying claims became moot, their claim for | 1 | 1 |
Mayer v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Birkmangreen1 sentence2013See Griffin v. Birkman, 266 S.W.3d 189, 193-94 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. denied) (recognizing that an attorney’s-fees claim or award may, in some circumstances, preserve a live controversy even after the principal claims for relief have been rendered moot); see also Marcos v. Marcos, No. 01-96- 7 In fact, the evidence reflects that J.M. has gone on to the University of Texas at Austin, where he is studying to be an engineer. 8 In this regard, we note that Cassandra, through her attorney, obtained multiple briefing extensions and ultimately did not file her brief until February 2013—roughly | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kinnear v. Texas Commission on Human Rights Ex Rel. Hale
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau
green
1 sentence2017Court of Appeals’ The court of appeals affirmed the judgment on the breach Disposition: of contract claim, reversed and rendered judgment for State Farm on the Insurance Code claims, and remanded the attorney fees claim to the trial court. 2 1 The jury charge (CR 686-709) and final judgment (CR 798-802) are attached to State Farm’s Petition as Appendix A & B. 2 The court of appeals’ opinion on rehearing and judgment are attached to State Farm’s Petition as Appendix C & D. iv SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Dennis Webb’s petition ostensibly focuses on the standard of review applied by the court of appe | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.