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 2 courts 1996–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pruske v. National Bank of Commerce of San Antoniogreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Havins, 919 S.W.2d at 181 (citing Pruske v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce of San Antonio, 533 S.W.2d 931 , 937 n. 1 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Havins v. First National Bank of Paducahgreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Havins, 919 S.W.2d at 181 (citing Pruske v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce of San Antonio, 533 S.W.2d 931 , 937 n. 1 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Dewberry v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Dewberry , 4 S.W.3d at 751 ; Bingham , 987 S.W.2d at 58 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Regal Finance Co. v. Tex Star Motors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010The Court also lists ten factors, noting “[ajlthough commercial reasonableness is not precisely defined in Article Nine, courts have considered a number of non-exclusive factors when addressing the term.” 355 S.W.3d 595 . 2010The Court further notes that "a comment to Article Nine explains that these safe harbors are not the exclusive means of proving commercial reasonableness." 355 S.W.3d 595 The Court also lists ten factors, noting "[a]lthough commercial reasonableness is not precisely defined in Article Nine, courts have considered a number of non-exclusive factors when addressing the term." 355 S.W.3d 595 . | 2 | 2010–2018 |
Woodall v. State
green
2 sentences2017Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634 , 639 n.6 (Tex. Crim. 2017Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634 , 639 n.6 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2016In making this determination, we may consider a number of non-exclusive factors, including: “(1) the importance of the hearsay statements to the State’s case; (2) whether the hearsay evidence was cumulative of other evidence; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the hearsay testimony on material points; and (4) the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Davis, 203 S.W.3d at 852 . 2013In making this determination, we may consider a number of non-exclusive factors, including: “(1) the importance of the hearsay statement’s to the State’s case; (2) whether the hearsay evidence was cumulative of other evidence; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the hearsay testimony on material points; and (4) the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Davis, 203 S.W.3d at 850 . | 2 | 2013–2016 |
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1996Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557 . 1996Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Perry v. S.N.
green
1 sentence2013Perry, 973 S.W.2d at 306 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bingham v. State
green
1 sentence2008See Dewberry , 4 S.W.3d at 751 ; Bingham , 987 S.W.2d at 58 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.