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 2004–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Canalesgreen2 sentences2010ANALYSIS In six issues, Hourani contends that the trial court erred by (1) declaring Section 2.4(o) of the deed restrictions invalid, (2) not finding that Katzen was barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver from challenging Section 2.4(o) of the restrictions, (3) granting relief beyond that requested in Katzen’s motion for summary judgment, (4) awarding attorney’s fees that were inequitable and unjust, (5) disregarding the construction pre-approval process set out in the restrictions at Section 2.2, and (6) appointing a Special Master without “good cause.” Appointing a Special Master In 2009ANALYSIS In six issues, Hourani contends that the trial court erred by (1) declaring Section 2.4(o) of the deed restrictions invalid, (2) not finding that Katzen was barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver from challenging Section 2.4(o) of the restrictions, (3) granting relief beyond that requested in Katzen's motion for summary judgment, (4) awarding attorney's fees that were inequitable and unjust, (5) disregarding the construction pre-approval process set out in the restrictions at Section 2.2, and (6) appointing a Special Master without "good cause." Appointing a Special Master In | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007Katerndahl , 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez , 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams , 791 S.W.2d at 552 . 2004Katerndahl, 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez, 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams, 791 S.W.2d at 552 . | 5 | 2004–2007 |
Katerndahl v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2007Katerndahl , 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez , 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams , 791 S.W.2d at 552 . 2004Katerndahl, 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez, 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams, 791 S.W.2d at 552 . | 5 | 2004–2007 |
Rodriquez v. Texas Farmers Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2007Katerndahl , 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez , 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams , 791 S.W.2d at 552 . 2004Katerndahl, 961 S.W.2d. at 524 ; Rodriquez, 903 S.W.2d at 510 ; Williams, 791 S.W.2d at 552 . | 5 | 2004–2007 |
Tull v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
green
2 sentences2006“Application of the doctrines of estoppel or waiver under the Wilkinson exception requires a showing that the insured was prejudiced by the insurer’s conduct.” Tull, 146 S.W.3d at 695 . 2005Whether the Association Suffered Prejudice Ulico further contends that the Association cannot show that it was prejudiced by Ulico’s failure to withdraw its coverage of defense costs until after the Association had already incurred defense costs in the Allen suit. “[A]pplication of the doctrines of estoppel or waiver under the Wilkinson exception requires a showing that the insured was prejudiced by the insurer’s conduct.” Tull , 146 S.W.3d at 695 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2020“Courts have repeatedly refused to apply the doctrines of estoppel and waiver to ‘change, re-write and enlarge the risks covered by a policy.’” Id. (quoting McGuire, 744 S.W.2d at 603 ). 2020“Courts have repeatedly refused to apply the doctrines of estoppel and waiver to ‘change, re-write and enlarge the risks covered by a policy.’” Id. (quoting McGuire, 744 S.W.2d at 603 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.