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 2009–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubertgreen2 sentences2023See Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2008) (“The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a position inconsistent with one that it maintained successfully in an earlier proceeding.”); see also Graves v. Tomlinson, 329 S.W.3d 128, 138 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (“[a]n appeal in the same case is not a ‘subsequent action’ to which judicial estoppel applies.”). 2014“The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a position inconsistent with one that it maintained successfully in an earlier proceeding.” Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex.2008). | 9 | 9 |
Davidson v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Davidson v. State , 737 S.W.2d 942, 948 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1987, pet. ref'd); see Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert , 264 S.W.3d 1, 11-13 (Tex. 2008) ("The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a position inconsistent with one that it maintained successfully in an earlier proceeding.") (citations omitted). 2009Davidson v. State , 737 S.W.2d 942, 948 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1987, pet. ref'd); see Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert , 264 S.W.3d 1, 11-13 (Tex. 2008) ("The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a position inconsistent with one that it maintained successfully in an earlier proceeding.") (citations omitted). | 5 | 5 |
Graves v. Tomlinsongreen1 sentence2023See Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2008) (“The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a position inconsistent with one that it maintained successfully in an earlier proceeding.”); see also Graves v. Tomlinson, 329 S.W.3d 128, 138 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (“[a]n appeal in the same case is not a ‘subsequent action’ to which judicial estoppel applies.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Building Materials Corp. of Americagreen1 sentence2019Ferguson v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642, 643 (Tex. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.