10 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Waco v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissiongreen2 sentences2007Compare City of Waco, 83 S.W.3d at 175-77 (holding that UDJA claim that agency acted beyond statutory authority "presents a purely legal inquiry" that "will not benefit from the development of additional facts in connection with a specific permit application"), with Esquire Deposition Servs., 240 S.W.3d at 92, 2007 WL 2066178, *9 (statutory authority issue required consideration of specific facts within agency expertise and not yet presented) and Beacon Nat'l Ins. 2007Compare City of Waco, 83 S.W.3d at 175-77 (holding that UDJA claim that agency acted beyond statutory authority “presents a purely legal inquiry” that “will not benefit from the development of additional facts in connection with a specific permit application”), with Esquire Deposition Servs., 240 S.W.3d at 92 , 2007 WL 2066178, *9 (statutory authority issue required consideration of specific facts within agency expertise and not yet presented) and Beacon Nat’l Ins. | 7 | 8 |
Beacon National Insurance Co. v. Montemayorgreen2 sentences2007Co., 86 S.W.3d at 268 (distinguishing City of Waco and holding that UDJA claims there "require[d] determination of several factual matters which have not been sufficiently developed"). 2007Co., 86 S.W.3d at 268 (distinguishing City of Waco and holding that UDJA claims there “requirefd] determination of several factual matters which have not been sufficiently developed”). | 6 | 6 |
Texas Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.green2 sentences2007Compare City of Waco, 83 S.W.3d at 175-77 (holding that UDJA claim that agency acted beyond statutory authority “presents a purely legal inquiry” that “will not benefit from the development of additional facts in connection with a specific permit application”), with Esquire Deposition Servs., 240 S.W.3d at 92 , 2007 WL 2066178, *9 (statutory authority issue required consideration of specific facts within agency expertise and not yet presented) and Beacon Nat’l Ins. 2007Compare City of Waco, 83 S.W.3d at 175-77 (holding that UDJA claim that agency acted beyond statutory authority “presents a purely legal inquiry” that “will not benefit from the development of additional facts in connection with a specific permit application”), with Esquire Deposition Servs., 240 S.W.3d at 92 , 2007 WL 2066178, *9 (statutory authority issue required consideration of specific facts within agency expertise and not yet presented) and Beacon Nat’l Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Landers v. State
green
1 sentence2016But we held in Landers v. State that a motion for new trial is not required to preserve error for a purely legal challenge to the imposition of costs. 402 S.W.3d at 255 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Peat Marwick Main v. Haass
green
2 sentences1991The court of appeals held that the client acquisition cost provision operated as a restraint of trade and was therefore unenforceable, that the “client reimbursement provision” was reasonable and enforceable, requiring that a portion of the trial court’s judgment be reversed and remanded for determination of MH’s damages under that provision and attorney’s fees, 6 but affirmed the trial court judgment that Haass recover his capital account subject to a $15,000 remittitur of attorneys’ fees. 775 S.W.2d at 711 . 1991The court of appeals held that the client acquisition cost provision operated as a restraint of trade and was therefore unenforceable, that the "client reimbursement provision" was reasonable and enforceable, requiring that a portion of the trial court's judgment be reversed and remanded for determination of MH's damages under that provision and attorney's fees, [6] but affirmed the trial court judgment that Haass recover his capital account subject to a $15,000 remittitur of attorneys' fees. 775 S.W.2d at 711 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.