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 1995–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc.green2 sentences2024Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726, 744 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. dism’d); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 700 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.). 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board, 453 S.W.3d 606 (2014) Med & Med GD (CCH) P 305,173 applicability of a rule ... may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment if it is alleged that the rule or its threatened application interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair a legal right or privilege of the plaintiff.”), (c) (“The state agency must be a party to the action.”); see also Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 700 (Tex.App.–Austin 2011, no pet.) (explaining that section 2001.038 wai | 2 | 2 |
Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Pharmacy Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2012See id. at 218 (“The question in this case is whether a state agency can claim the competitive-advantage exception under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act .... on behalf of the person who supplied the information”). 2012See id. at 218 (“The question in this case is whether a state agency can claim the competitive- advantage exception under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act . . . on behalf of the person who supplied the information.”). | 2 | 2 |
Gerst v. Oak Cliff Savings and Loan Associationgreen2 sentences2001See Gerst v. Oak CIiff Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 432 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Tex. 3Sections 101.201 and 153.002 were adopted by the 73d Legislature. 2000Gent v. Oak CliffSavings & Loan Ass’n, 432 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Tex. 1968). | 2 | 2 |
Rutherford Oil Corp. v. General Land Office of the Stategreen2 sentences1995The purpose of section 2001.038, however, “is to obtain a final declaration of a rule’s validity before the rule is applied.” Rutherford Oil Corp. v. General Land Office, 776 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex.App.—Austin 1989, no writ) (emphasis added). 1995The purpose of section 2001.038, however, "is to obtain a final declaration of a rule's validity before the rule is applied." Rutherford Oil Corp. v. General Land Office, 776 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex.App.— Austin 1989, no writ) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of State Health Services v. Balquintagreen1 sentence2024Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726, 744 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. dism’d); Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 700 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board, 453 S.W.3d 606 (2014) Med & Med GD (CCH) P 305,173 applicability of a rule ... may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment if it is alleged that the rule or its threatened application interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair a legal right or privilege of the plaintiff.”), (c) (“The state agency must be a party to the action.”); see also Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 700 (Tex.App.–Austin 2011, no pet.) (explaining that section 2001.038 wai | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harvill v. State
green
2 sentences1998V.T.C.S. art. 8890, 5 14(d) “The legislature may establish civil penalties or fmes for violation of a state agency rule “against any person, firm or corporation subject to and violating such rule or regulation.” Hanil v. State, 188 S.W.2d 869 , 87 1 (Tex. Civ. 1998V.T.C.S. art. 8890, § 14(d). 25 The legislature may establish civil penalties or fines for violation of a state agency rule "against any person, firm or corporation subject to and violating such rule or regulation." Harvill v. State , 188 S.W.2d 869 , 871 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1945, writ ref'd). 26 "Person" is defined in the Medical Practice Act to mean an individual, unless otherwise expressly made applicable to a partnership, association, or corporation. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
RAILROAD COM'N OF TEXAS v. WBD Oil & Gas
green
2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Railroad Com’n of Texas v. WBD Oil & Gas Co., 104 S.W.3d 69 (2003) 159 Oil & Gas Rep. 122 , 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 442 46 Id. § 2001.038(d) (“A court may render a declaratory judgment without regard to whether the plaintiff requested the state agency to rule on the validity or applicability of the rule in question.”). 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Railroad Com’n of Texas v. WBD Oil & Gas Co., 104 S.W.3d 69 (2003) 159 Oil & Gas Rep. 122 , 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 442 46 Id. § 2001.038(d) (“A court may render a declaratory judgment without regard to whether the plaintiff requested the state agency to rule on the validity or applicability of the rule in question.”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board and Nancy Leshikar, in Her Official Capacity as General Counsel of the Texas Medical Board
green
1 sentence2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board, 453 S.W.3d 606 (2014) Med & Med GD (CCH) P 305,173 applicability of a rule ... may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment if it is alleged that the rule or its threatened application interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair a legal right or privilege of the plaintiff.”), (c) (“The state agency must be a party to the action.”); see also Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 700 (Tex.App.–Austin 2011, no pet.) (explaining that section 2001.038 wai | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.