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 1 courts 1982–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Quigley v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2008“Reliance damages, similar to out-of-pocket recovery, reimburse one for expenditures made toward the execution of the contract in order to restore the status quo before the contract.” Hart v. Moore, 952 S.W.2d 90, 97 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, pet. denied); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349 (reliance damages “in-clud[e] expenditures made in preparation for performance or in performance, less any loss that the party in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed”); see also Quigley v. Bennett, 227 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Bliste 2008"Reliance damages, similar to out-of-pocket recovery, reimburse one for expenditures made toward the execution of the contract in order to restore the status quo before the contract." Hart v. Moore , 952 S.W.2d 90, 97 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1997, pet. denied); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349 (reliance damages "includ[e] expenditures made in preparation for performance or in performance, less any loss that the party in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed"); see also Quigley v. Bennett , 227 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Bri | 5 | 5 |
Hart v. Mooregreen2 sentences2008“Reliance damages, similar to out-of-pocket recovery, reimburse one for expenditures made toward the execution of the contract in order to restore the status quo before the contract.” Hart v. Moore, 952 S.W.2d 90, 97 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, pet. denied); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349 (reliance damages “in-clud[e] expenditures made in preparation for performance or in performance, less any loss that the party in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed”); see also Quigley v. Bennett, 227 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Bliste 2008"Reliance damages, similar to out-of-pocket recovery, reimburse one for expenditures made toward the execution of the contract in order to restore the status quo before the contract." Hart v. Moore , 952 S.W.2d 90, 97 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1997, pet. denied); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 349 (reliance damages "includ[e] expenditures made in preparation for performance or in performance, less any loss that the party in breach can prove with reasonable certainty the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed"); see also Quigley v. Bennett , 227 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Bri | 5 | 5 |
First Bank of Deer Park v. Harris Countygreen2 sentences2011See First Bank of Deer Park, 804 S.W.2d at 593 (stating that in tax refund case, defensive theory may be pleaded as either affirmative defense or as separate cause of action if party is seeking affirmative relief). 2011See First Bank of Deer Park , 804 S.W.2d at 593 (stating that in tax refund case, defensive theory may be pleaded as either affirmative defense or as separate cause of action if party is seeking affirmative relief). | 2 | 2 |
Bechtel Corp. v. CITGO PRODUCTS PIPELINE CO.green1 sentence2022Bechtel Corp. v. CITGO Products Pipeline Co., 271 S.W.3d 898, 926-27 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet.) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
New Trends, Inc. v. Stafford-Lowdon Co.green1 sentence1982See New Trends, Inc. v. Stafford-Lowdon Co., 537 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wheeler v. White
green
2 sentences2008Although promissory estoppel may be the basis for an affirmative claim, Wheeler, 398 S.W.2d at 96 , the supreme court has restricted the types of damages a promissory estoppel plaintiff can recover to “enforce” a promise: “the promisee is to be allowed to recover no more than reliance damages measured by the detriment sustained.” Wheeler, 398 S.W.2d at 97 . 2008Although promissory estoppel may be the basis for an affirmative claim, Wheeler, 398 S.W.2d at 96 , the supreme court has restricted the types of damages a promissory estoppel plaintiff can recover to “enforce” a promise: “the promisee is to be allowed to recover no more than reliance damages measured by the detriment sustained.” Wheeler, 398 S.W.2d at 97 . | 5 | 2008–2008 |
Tom Hicks Transfer Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Texas Inc.
green
1 sentence1991A Texas court applied the estoppel principle in Tom Hicks Transfer Company, Inc. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Texas Incorporated, 482 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1972, no writ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.