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 2011–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Luckel v. Whitegreen2 sentences2014“We must assume the parties to the instrument intended every clause to have some effect; therefore, the language of the deed should be interpreted so that no provision is rendered meaningless.” Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011, pet. denied); see also Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex.1991); Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393 . 2012The court “must assume the parties to the instrument intended every clause to have some effect; therefore the -6- 04-11-00838-CV language of the deed should be interpreted so that no provision is rendered meaningless.” Hausser, 345 S.W.3d at 467 (citing Luckel, 819 S.W.2d at 461 ). | 6 | 7 |
Hausser v. Cuellargreen2 sentences2015The Court “must assume the parties to the instrument intended every clause to have some effect; therefore, the language of the deed should be interpreted so that no provision is rendered meaningless.” Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (en banc). 2014“We must assume the parties to the instrument intended every clause to have some effect; therefore, the language of the deed should be interpreted so that no provision is rendered meaningless.” Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011, pet. denied); see also Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex.1991); Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393 . | 2 | 3 |
Coker v. Cokergreen2 sentences2025See Luckel, 819 S.W.2d at 462 ; Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393 . 2014“We must assume the parties to the instrument intended every clause to have some effect; therefore, the language of the deed should be interpreted so that no provision is rendered meaningless.” Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011, pet. denied); see also Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex.1991); Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393 . | 1 | 6 |
Winegar v. Martingreen1 sentence2015“Each word and phrase should be given its plain, grammatical meaning unless doing so would clearly defeat the parties’ intent.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Winegar v. Martin, 304 S.W.3d 661, 665 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.) (explaining that “every word, clause, and part that is pertinent” must be considered in construing a deed) (emphasis added). 1 A. In construing the 1927 Deed’s reverter clause, the panel failed to give effect to all of the words contained in it. | 1 | 1 |
Waters v. Ellisgreen2 sentences2014“A deed will be construed to confer upon the grantee the greatest estate that the terms of the instrument will permit.” Waters v. Ellis, 158 Tex. 342 , 312 S.W.2d 231, 234 (1958); see also Chambers v. Huggins, 709 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). 2014“A deed will be construed to confer upon the grantee the greatest estate that the terms of the instrument will permit.” Waters v. Ellis, 158 Tex. 342 , 312 S.W.2d 231, 234 (1958); see also Chambers v. Huggins, 709 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Hugginsgreen1 sentence2014“A deed will be construed to confer upon the grantee the greatest estate that the terms of the instrument will permit.” Waters v. Ellis, 158 Tex. 342 , 312 S.W.2d 231, 234 (1958); see also Chambers v. Huggins, 709 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frost National Bank v. L & F Distributors, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2019“We must assume the parties to the instrument intended every clause to have some effect; therefore, the language of the deed should be interpreted so that no clause is rendered meaningless.” Id. (citing Union Pac. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Linda Ann Parrish Richardson and Gary Bruce Richardson, Co-Trustees of the M.C. Parrish, Jr. Testamentary Trust v. Donald Roger Mills
green
1 sentence2017“We must assume the parties to the instrument intended every clause to have- some effect; therefore, the language of the deed -should be interpreted so that no clause is rendered meaningless.” Richardson, 514 S.W.3d at 413, 2017 WL 511893, at *3 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |