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 1983–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences2026Dist. v. Cornyn, 25 S.W.3d 328 , 334 n.12 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied) (“It is inconceivable that an attorney could give sound legal advice on a client’s case if he or she did not include an application of the law or opinion to the specific facts of the case.” (quoting Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwell, 861 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ))); Pittsburgh Corning, 861 S.W.2d at 425 (noting that “the relevant facts of a case may not be hidden under the guise of privilege” but that “those facts are discoverable through other proper means of discovery, witho 2026Dist. v. Cornyn, 25 S.W.3d 328 , 334 n.12 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied) (“It is inconceivable that an attorney could give sound legal advice on a client’s case if he or she did not include an application of the law or opinion to the specific facts of the case.” (quoting Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwell, 861 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ))); Pittsburgh Corning, 861 S.W.2d at 425 (noting that “the relevant facts of a case may not be hidden under the guise of privilege” but that “those facts are discoverable through other proper means of discovery, witho | 2 | 2 |
Heyker v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences1983Accord, Heyker v. Herbst, 50 S.W. 859 , 860 (Ky. 1899). 1983Accord, Heyker v. Herbst, 50 S.W. 859, 860 (Ky. 1899). | 2 | 2 |
Moff v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See id. at 490-92 . | 1 | 1 |
Rosa v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence2015Tex. 2005) (noting distinction between federal and Texas approaches when federal procedure governed admissibility of expert testimony but Texas state law governed substantive sufficiency of evidence review); see also, e.g., Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs., P.A., 137 So. 3d 362, 366-67 (Fla. 2013) (reinstating trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant when plaintiff’s expert testified that defendant would have discovered defect in chair in reasonable inspection, even though expert testified that reasonable interval for inspection was every six months but failed to provide basis for concludi | 1 | 1 |
Acker v. Texas Water Commissiongreen1 sentence2015See Acker, 790 S.W.2d at 301 (holding officials cannot be allowed to meet and deliberate privately about contested proceedings without eviscerating TOMA). | 1 | 1 |
C.B. Fleet Company, Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnershipgreen1 sentence2015Fleet Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P., 131 F.3d 430, 437 (4th Cir. 1997) (rejecting party’s argument that it could challenge the sufficiency of expert testimony to support finding in the absence of an admissibility objection and stating that a Daubert review ″cannot be done under the guise of a challenge to the substantive sufficiency of the evidence″); Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp., 362 F. Supp. 2d 814, 821 (W.D. | 1 | 1 |
Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.green1 sentence2015Fleet Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P., 131 F.3d 430, 437 (4th Cir. 1997) (rejecting party’s argument that it could challenge the sufficiency of expert testimony to support finding in the absence of an admissibility objection and stating that a Daubert review ″cannot be done under the guise of a challenge to the substantive sufficiency of the evidence″); Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp., 362 F. Supp. 2d 814, 821 (W.D. | 1 | 1 |
Friedrich v. Fetterman & Associates, P.A.green1 sentence2015Tex. 2005) (noting distinction between federal and Texas approaches when federal procedure governed admissibility of expert testimony but Texas state law governed substantive sufficiency of evidence review); see also, e.g., Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs., P.A., 137 So. 3d 362, 366-67 (Fla. 2013) (reinstating trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant when plaintiff’s expert testified that defendant would have discovered defect in chair in reasonable inspection, even though expert testified that reasonable interval for inspection was every six months but failed to provide basis for concludi | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
Rice v. Pinneygreen1 sentence2009A forcible detainer action, which is a special proceeding governed by particular statutes and rules, "was created to provide a speedy, simple, and inexpensive means for resolving the question of the right to possession of premises." Rice v. Pinney , 51 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.); see Tex. Prop. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harlandale Independent School District v. Cornyn
green
2 sentences2026Dist. v. Cornyn, 25 S.W.3d 328 , 334 n.12 (Tex. App.— Austin 2000, pet. denied) (“It is inconceivable that an attorney could give sound legal advice on a client’s case if he or she did not include an application of the law or opinion to the specific facts of the case.” (quoting Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwell, 861 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Tex. App.— 27 Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ))); Pittsburgh Corning, 861 S.W.2d at 425 (noting that “the relevant facts of a case may not be hidden under the guise of privilege” but that “those facts are discoverable through other proper means of discovery, 2026Dist. v. Cornyn, 25 S.W.3d 328 , 334 n.12 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied) (“It is inconceivable that an attorney could give sound legal advice on a client’s case if he or she did not include an application of the law or opinion to the specific facts of the case.” (quoting Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Caldwell, 861 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ))); Pittsburgh Corning, 861 S.W.2d at 425 (noting that “the relevant facts of a case may not be hidden under the guise of privilege” but that “those facts are discoverable through other proper means of discovery, witho | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Heiner v. Donnan
green
2 sentences2015This court has held more than once that a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Id., at 329 . [emphasis added] "If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law," Id., at 329 . 2015This court has held more than once that a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Id., at 329 . [emphasis added] "If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law," Id., at 329 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.