master rule (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

master rule in Texas

10 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1913–2008 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Young v. Younggreen
texapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004"When issues are referred to and heard by a master under rule 171, the master's report is conclusive on all issues except those specifically objected to." Young v. Young , 854 S.W.2d 698 , 701 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, writ denied).

2004“When issues are referred to and heard by a master under rule 171, the master’s report is conclusive on all issues except those specifically objected to.” Young v. Young, 854 S.W.2d 698, 701 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1993, writ denied).

12
Comet Aluminum Company v. Dibrellgreen
tex · 1970 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008“Rendition is the judicial act by which the court settles and declares the decision of the law upon the matters at issue.” Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell , 450 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1970) (quoting Coleman v. Zapp , 105 Tex. 491 , 151 S.W. 1040, 1041 (Tex. 1912)).

11
Coleman v. Zappgreen
tex · 1912 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008“Rendition is the judicial act by which the court settles and declares the decision of the law upon the matters at issue.” Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell , 450 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1970) (quoting Coleman v. Zapp , 105 Tex. 491 , 151 S.W. 1040, 1041 (Tex. 1912)).

2008“Rendition is the judicial act by which the court settles and declares the decision of the law upon the matters at issue.” Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell , 450 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1970) (quoting Coleman v. Zapp , 105 Tex. 491 , 151 S.W. 1040, 1041 (Tex. 1912)).

11
Cameron v. Camerongreen
texapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993Minnich v. Jones, 799 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1990, no writ); Martin, 797 S.W.2d at 350 ; Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1980, no writ).

11
Minnich v. Jonesgreen
texapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993Minnich v. Jones, 799 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1990, no writ); Martin, 797 S.W.2d at 350 ; Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1980, no writ).

11
Janecka v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992Furthermore, the order of this Court in remanding the case for said hearing stated explicitly “The trial court shall hold a hearing to allow appellant to more fully develop his allegation of harm.” Janec-ka v. State, supra, at 842.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Martin v. Martin green
texapp · 1990
1 sentence

1993Minnich v. Jones, 799 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1990, no writ); Martin, 797 S.W.2d at 350 ; Cameron v. Cameron, 601 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1980, no writ).

11993–1993
Walker v. Temple Trust Co. green
tex · 1935
1 sentence

1989Clearly, by ignoring any underlying contract which may have existed between the appellant and appellee, the court here did not interpret the contract in all of it’s parts and as a whole, and thereby departed “from the master principle of construction — the ascertainment of the real intention of the parties.” Walker, supra, 80 S.W.2d at 937 .

11989–1989
Matter of Carrillo green
tex · 1976
2 sentences

1977P. Carrillo, 542 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1976), we must determine the effect on this proceeding of two events outside the control of this court: (1) the acts of misconduct found by the Master and the Commission occurred before Judge Bates was re-elected District Judge on November 2, 1976; and (2) there was a concurrent criminal proceeding against Judge Bates, which began on November 1, 1976, which involved the same facts which were before the Master at the hearing.

1977P. Carrillo, 542 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1976), we must determine the effect on this proceeding of two events outside the control of this court: (1) the acts of misconduct found by the Master and the Commission occurred before Judge Bates was re-elected District Judge on November 2, 1976; and (2) there was a concurrent criminal proceeding against Judge Bates, which began on November 1, 1976, which involved the same facts which were before the Master at the hearing.

11977–1977
Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell green
tex · 1934
2 sentences

1975Fort Worth Elevators Company v. Russell, 123 Tex. 128 , 70 S.W.2d 397 (1934).

1975Fort Worth Elevators Company v. Russell, 123 Tex. 128 , 70 S.W.2d 397 (1934).

11975–1975
Newspapers, Inc. v. Love green
tex · 1964
1 sentence

1973“Certainly if the right of control of details has a contractual basis, the circumstance that no actual control was exercised will not absolve the master of liability.” Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, (Tex.Sup., 1964) 380 S. W.2d 582, 589 .

11973–1973
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Hennegan green
texapp · 1903
1 sentence

1913Railway Co. v. Hennegan, 33 Tex. Civ.

11913–1913

Where else courts name it

PA 35 (1910–2024) SC 19 (1963–2025) AL 18 (1915–2025) IL 13 (1893–1975) TX 10 (1913–2008) NY 10 (1902–1974) MA 10 (1836–2025) VT 10 (1920–2026) GA 7 (1923–2019) MD 7 (1944–2026) NH 6 (1972–2017) MO 6 (1900–2015) VA 6 (1952–2016) KS 5 (1905–2000) FL 4 (1960–1995) CO 4 (1985–2026) CA 4 (1905–2012) OK 3 (1935–1962) DE 3 (1984–2016) KY 3 (1918–1969) MN 3 (1959–1970) AR 3 (1917–1999) ID 3 (1906–1955) AK 3 (1982–1999) TN 2 (1925–1977) WV 2 (1930–1940) IN 2 (1922–2001) NJ 2 (1951–1985) UT 2 (2008–2024) AZ 2 (2019–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check