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 2008–2024 2 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 Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Boardgreen2 sentences2012But it can be raised only before a court with competent jurisdiction.”40 Thus, even though a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge remains viable, we may not decide such a challenge unless it is properly before us.41 38 E.g., Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993); see also Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 . 39 See Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 ; see also Siddiqui v. Unlimited Asset Recovery, Inc., No. 01-09-00026-CV, 2009 WL 3930748 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“While 2008Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445-46 (Tex. 1993). 2. | 3 | 3 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2024See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 . 2014See Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d at 622 ; Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228 . | 1 | 3 |
In Re SJAgreen1 sentence2022See In re S.J.A., 272 S.W.3d 678, 682 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
City of El Paso, Mayor Oscar Leeser, City Representatives Emma Acosta, Carl L. Robinson, Michiel R. Noe, Courtney C. Niland, Ann Morgan Lilly, Larry Romero, Claudia Ordaz and Lily Limon v. Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr.green1 sentence2020See City of El Paso v. Waterblasting Technologies, Inc., 491 S.W.3d 890, 903-04 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Sledge, Ex Parte Casey Tyronegreen1 sentence2015See Ex Parte Sledge, 391 S.W.3d 104, 108 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Moss, Jecia Javettegreen1 sentence2015App. 2009) 10 – Appellant’s Response to State’s Petition for Discretionary Review However, this assumption appears to have been resolved in Murray itself and this Court’s recent unanimous decision in Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786, 788-89 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
City of Waco v. Kirwangreen1 sentence2014See Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d at 622 ; Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228 . | 1 | 1 |
Brenham Housing Authority v. Daviesgreen2 sentences2012But it can be raised only before a court with competent jurisdiction.”40 Thus, even though a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge remains viable, we may not decide such a challenge unless it is properly before us.41 38 E.g., Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993); see also Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 . 39 See Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 ; see also Siddiqui v. Unlimited Asset Recovery, Inc., No. 01-09-00026-CV, 2009 WL 3930748 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“While 2012But it can be raised only before a court with competent jurisdiction.”40 Thus, even though a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge remains viable, we may not decide such a challenge unless it is properly before us.41 38 E.g., Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993); see also Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 . 39 See Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 ; see also Siddiqui v. Unlimited Asset Recovery, Inc., No. 01-09-00026-CV, 2009 WL 3930748 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“While | 1 | 1 |
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.red1 sentence2012While a party generally will not have the opportunity to engage in additional discovery, amend pleadings, or introduce new evidence in response to a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge raised for the first time on appeal from a final judgment, a final judgment connotes an opportunity to fully developed the record on all issues necessary to resolution of the entire case;60 an interlocutory order does not. 60 See, e.g., Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (observing that final judgment is proper only if it disposes of all parties and claims and that summary judgment orders | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Forsythgreen2 sentences2012While a party generally will not have the opportunity to engage in additional discovery, amend pleadings, or introduce new evidence in response to a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge raised for the first time on appeal from a final judgment, a final judgment connotes an opportunity to fully developed the record on all issues necessary to resolution of the entire case;60 an interlocutory order does not. 60 See, e.g., Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (observing that final judgment is proper only if it disposes of all parties and claims and that summary judgment orders 2012While a party generally will not have the opportunity to engage in additional discovery, amend pleadings, or introduce new evidence in response to a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge raised for the first time on appeal from a final judgment, a final judgment connotes an opportunity to fully developed the record on all issues necessary to resolution of the entire case;60 an interlocutory order does not. 60 See, e.g., Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (observing that final judgment is proper only if it disposes of all parties and claims and that summary judgment orders | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Longgreen1 sentence2011In Thomas v. Long, the Supreme Court of Texas held a trial court should address subject-matter jurisdiction claim-by-claim, dismissing claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and retaining claims in the same case over which it has jurisdiction. 207 S.W.3d 334, 338-39 (Tex.2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rhodes v. State
green
2 sentences2015We assume, without deciding, that the State is not barred by a subject matter jurisdiction claim.” Id. at 882 . 2 302 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. 2015See Murray,302 S.W.3d at 882 n.42 (enrphasis added); Rhodes, 240 S.W.3d at 891 ; see also Derosier,2015 Tex. App.LEXIS I I155, at*5,14. 6 The Murray opinion assumed the State was not barred from advancing estoppel in a subject-matter jurisdiction claim. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Murray, Raymond Desmond
green
1 sentence2015We assume, without deciding, that the State is not barred by a subject matter jurisdiction claim.” Id. at 882 . 2 302 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Marin v. State
green
1 sentence2015Furthermore, this Court’s solution begs the question, if this Court would not carve out a subject-matter jurisdiction exception for public policy then how could this 11 – Appellant’s Response to State’s Petition for Discretionary Review Court create an estoppel exception when subject-matter jurisdiction is an “absolute systemic requirement[-] * * * and [is] not forfeitable?” Marin v. State, 851 SW2d 275 (Tex.Crim.App.1993.) Subject-matter jurisdiction is “independent of the litigant’s wishes. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Waco Independent School District v. Gibson
green
1 sentence2012F. The Texas Supreme Court has declined to resolve the split in the courts of appeals The Texas Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to resolve the split in the courts of appeals over this issue, but declined to reach it.57 Since then, the Texas Supreme Court has, on at least two occasions, exercised interlocutory jurisdiction over a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge on which the trial court had not had an opportunity to rule.58 In both cases, the Court did not address, and the parties did not challenge, the Texas Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to consider the new challenge to the trial | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Austin Independent School District v. Lowery
green
2 sentences2012But it can be raised only before a court with competent jurisdiction.”40 Thus, even though a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge remains viable, we may not decide such a challenge unless it is properly before us.41 38 E.g., Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993); see also Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 . 39 See Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 ; see also Siddiqui v. Unlimited Asset Recovery, Inc., No. 01-09-00026-CV, 2009 WL 3930748 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“While 2012But it can be raised only before a court with competent jurisdiction.”40 Thus, even though a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge remains viable, we may not decide such a challenge unless it is properly before us.41 38 E.g., Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993); see also Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 . 39 See Davies, 158 S.W.3d at 61 ; Lowery, 212 S.W.3d at 834 ; see also Siddiqui v. Unlimited Asset Recovery, Inc., No. 01-09-00026-CV, 2009 WL 3930748 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“While | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.