general common law rule in Texas

2024“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. 1974).

2024“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. 1974).

2024Applicable Law “The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” Id. at 294 (internal quotation marks omitted); In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding).

2018Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex. 2016) (“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” (quoting Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. 1974))); Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d 304, 305-06 (Tex. 1986) (“[W]hen a suit is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, that court is entitled to proceed to judgment and may protect its jurisdiction by enjoining the parties to a suit subsequently filed in another court of this state.”); In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 189 (Tex.

2022Appraisal Dist., 862 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex. 1993); Mower v. Boyer, 811 S.W.2d 560 , 563 n.2 (Tex. 1991).

1995The general common law rule in Texas is that “the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.1974); Bailey v. Cherokee County Appraisal Dist., 862 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex.1993); Mower v. Boyer, 811 S.W.2d 560 , 563 n. 2 (Tex.1991).

2010The general common law rule provides that “[a] tenant who remains in possession of the premises after termination of the lease occupies ‘wrongfully’ and is said to have a tenancy at sufferance.” Bockelmann v. Marynick, 788 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex.1990).

2010The general common law rule provides that "[a] tenant who remains in possession of the premises after termination of the lease occupies `wrongfully' and is said to have a tenancy at sufferance." Bockelmann v. Marynick, 788 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex.1990).

2004See e.g., Solomon, Lambert, Roth & Assocs., Inc. v. Kidd, 904 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ).

2004See e.g., Solomon, Lambert, Roth & Assocs., Inc. v. Kidd, 904 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ).

2013“As a rule, when cases involving the same subject matter are brought in different courts, the court with the first-filed case has dominant jurisdiction and should proceed, and the other cases should abate.” Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 252 (Tex.2001); Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.1974) (“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.”), citing Cleveland, v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1 , 285 S.W. 1063 (1926).

2013“As a rule, when cases involving the same subject matter are brought in different courts, the court with the first-filed case has dominant jurisdiction and should proceed, and the other cases should abate.” Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 252 (Tex.2001); Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.1974) (“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.”), citing Cleveland, v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1 , 285 S.W. 1063 (1926).

1986Van Zandt v. Fort Worth Press, 359 S.W.2d 893, 896 (Tex. 1962).

1973The general common law rule is to disallow attorney’s fees in the absence of a contract to the contrary, Van Zandt, supra. Consequently a statute that creates a liability unknown to the common law will be strictly construed.

2024Applicable Law “The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” Id. at 294 (internal quotation marks omitted); In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding).

2024“Where two actions involving the same subject matter are brought in different courts having concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction should retain such jurisdiction, undisturbed by the interference of another court, and dispose of the controversy.” In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d at 303 .

2024“The dominant jurisdiction analysis is applicable, however, only when multiple suits are inherently interrelated and venue is proper in each county.” Wyrick v. Business Bank of Tex., N.A., 577 S.W.3d 336, 357 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (citing In re Red Dot Bldg.

2023See Meyers v. JDC/Firethorne, Ltd., 548 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. 2018).

2018Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex. 2016) (“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” (quoting Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. 1974))); Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d 304, 305-06 (Tex. 1986) (“[W]hen a suit is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, that court is entitled to proceed to judgment and may protect its jurisdiction by enjoining the parties to a suit subsequently filed in another court of this state.”); In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 189 (Tex.

2018Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex. 2016) (“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” (quoting Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. 1974))); Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d 304, 305-06 (Tex. 1986) (“[W]hen a suit is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, that court is entitled to proceed to judgment and may protect its jurisdiction by enjoining the parties to a suit subsequently filed in another court of this state.”); In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 189 (Tex.

2017In re Puig , 351 S.W.3d 301 , 305 (Tex. 2011) ("When the jurisdiction of a county court sitting in probate and a district court are concurrent, the issue is one of dominant jurisdiction.") The Texas Supreme Court explains dominant jurisdiction this way: The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.

2016See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). 6 ANALYSIS A. Principles of Dominant Jurisdiction “The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.” In re J.B.

2013“Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court.” Texas Home Mgmt, Inc. v. Peavy, 89 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex. 2002) Chapter 95 codified the general common-law rule that “an owner or occupier does not have a duty to see that an independent contractor performs work in a safe manner.” Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1985); see TEX.

2013“As a rule, when cases involving the same subject matter are brought in different courts, the court with the first-filed case has dominant jurisdiction and should proceed, and the other cases should abate.” Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 252 (Tex.2001); Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.1974) (“The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.”), citing Cleveland, v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1 , 285 S.W. 1063 (1926).

2013Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 128 (Tex. 1999).

2013“Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court.” Texas Home Mgmt, Inc. v. Peavy, 89 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex. 2002) Chapter 95 codified the general common-law rule that “an owner or occupier does not have a duty to see that an independent contractor performs work in a safe manner.” Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1985); see TEX.

2013However, “the mere physical filing of the petition is insufficient to deprive a court in which the same suit is subsequently filed of active jurisdiction.” See Clawson v. Millard, 934 S.W.2d 899, 900 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ).

2011Additionally, Dugger can claim no vested right in the general common law rule to defeat that policy. “[N]o one has any vested or property interest in the rules of the common law, and therefore no one is deprived of a constitutional right by their change through legislative enactment.” Middleton v. Tex. Power & Light Co., 108 Tex. 96 , 185 S.W. 556, 561 (1916) (upholding constitutionality of workers’ compensation act). 20 Dugger argues section 93.001 applies only “to those civil actions for damages for personal injury or death in which the sole cause of the damages was either (1) the claimant’s

2011Additionally, Dugger can claim no vested right in the general common law rule to defeat that policy. “[N]o one has any vested or property interest in the rules of the common law, and therefore no one is deprived of a constitutional right by their change through legislative enactment.” Middleton v. Tex. Power & Light Co., 108 Tex. 96 , 185 S.W. 556, 561 (1916) (upholding constitutionality of workers’ compensation act). 20 Dugger argues section 93.001 applies only “to those civil actions for damages for personal injury or death in which the sole cause of the damages was either (1) the claimant’s