10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Compania Financiara Libano, S.A. v. Simmonsgreen1 sentence2014Generally, once parties settle a lawsuit and a judgment is entered, res judicata bars the parties from subsequently pursuing any claims arising out of the subject matter of the lawsuit that they could have brought in the previous suit. 7 See, e.g., Companía Financiara Líbano, S.A. v. Simmons, 53 S.W.3d 365, 367 (Tex.2001) (“The doctrine of res judi-cata in Texas holds that a final judgment in an action bars the parties and their privies from bringing a second suit ‘not only on matters actually litigated, but also on causes of action or defenses which arise out of the same subject matter and wh | 1 | 1 |
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. Ex Rel. Sunbelt Federal Savingsgreen1 sentence2014Generally, once parties settle a lawsuit and a judgment is entered, res judicata bars the parties from subsequently pursuing any claims arising out of the subject matter of the lawsuit that they could have brought in the previous suit. 7 See, e.g., Companía Financiara Líbano, S.A. v. Simmons, 53 S.W.3d 365, 367 (Tex.2001) (“The doctrine of res judi-cata in Texas holds that a final judgment in an action bars the parties and their privies from bringing a second suit ‘not only on matters actually litigated, but also on causes of action or defenses which arise out of the same subject matter and wh | 1 | 1 |
Labrie v. Kenneygreen1 sentence2008Labrie v. Kenney, 95 S.W.3d 722, 728-29 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Agnes E. NILSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the CITY OF MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appelleegreen1 sentence1991Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556, 559 (5th Cir.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Segrest v. Segrestgreen1 sentence1986Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W.2d 610, 612 (Tex. 1983); Gilbert v. Fireside Enterprises, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Ruedas v. Stategreen1 sentence1986In Ruedas v. State, 586 S.W.2d 520, 524 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) the majority opinion, written by Judge Roberts, after citing Whisenant v. State, held that a probationer was entitled to have counsel give a final argument at a revocation proceeding because the hearing was an adversary proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Fireside Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence1986Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W.2d 610, 612 (Tex. 1983); Gilbert v. Fireside Enterprises, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Water Rights Commission v. Crow Iron Worksgreen1 sentence1980Id. at 772. | 1 | 1 |
Abbott Laboratories v. Gravisgreen1 sentence1980Accord, Abbott Laboratories v. Gravis, 470 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Tex.1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Van Dyke v. Boswell, O'Toole, Davis & Pickering
green
1 sentence2008Van Dyke, 697 S.W.2d at 384 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
McGowen v. Mau-Ping Huang
green
1 sentence2006Because the Texas Supreme Court did not further define an "occurrence” in Bossley , other Texas courts have applied the res judi-cata factors to determine whether two causes of action involve the "same subject matter." See McGowen, 120 S.W.3d at 459 ; see also Waxahachie Indep. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America
green
1 sentence1993The court of appeals affirmed on the theory of res judica-ta. 819 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.App.—Houston 1991). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Davenport v. State
green
1 sentence1986By considering the matter administrative in nature and not judicial, the majority concludes that the doctrine of res judi-cata does not apply.” Id. at 80 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Freeman v. McAninch
green
2 sentences1980In the frequently-cited case of Freeman v. McAninch, 87 Tex. 132 , 27 S.W. 97 (1894), the supreme court, quoting Ohio authority, stated that, under the doctrine of res judi-cata: “A party can not relitigate matters [i. e., issues] which he might have interposed, but failed to do, in a prior action between the same parties or their privies, in reference to the same subject matter.” 87 Tex. at 139 , 27 S.W. at 100 . 1980In the frequently-cited case of Freeman v. McAninch, 87 Tex. 132 , 27 S.W. 97 (1894), the supreme court, quoting Ohio authority, stated that, under the doctrine of res judi-cata: “A party can not relitigate matters [i. e., issues] which he might have interposed, but failed to do, in a prior action between the same parties or their privies, in reference to the same subject matter.” 87 Tex. at 139 , 27 S.W. at 100 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Marshall v. Mayfield
green
1 sentence1971They have made their election to stand on the bond and they would not now be permitted to go back and bring a suit on the tort, to declare the bond a nullity and attempt to recover from the alleged tort-feasors. 15 TexJur. p. 822: "Where a remedy has been pursuant to judgment, a resort to another remedy is precluded by the doctrine of res judi-cata." Marshall v. Mayfield (Tex.Com.App.) 227 S.W. 1097 .’ ” (Italics by El Paso Court.) Often what is spoken of in opinions as a choice between remedies is in reality a choice of “an alternative substantive right.” Indeed, it is probable that some elem | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.