69 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1929–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
\ MOORE\" BURGERgreen2 sentences2003The doctrine is more commonly used, as it is here, counter-defensively by a plaintiff faced with the statute of frauds defense. " Moore" Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum, Co. , 492 S.W.2d 934, 936-37 (Tex. 1972); Sonnichsen v. Baylor Univ. , 47 S.W.3d 122, 125 (Tex. App.--Waco 2001, no pet.). 2003The doctrine is more commonly used, as it is here, counter-defensively by a plaintiff faced with the statute of frauds defense. “ Moore” Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum, Co. , 492 S.W.2d 934, 936-37 (Tex. 1972); Sonnichsen v. Baylor Univ. , 47 S.W.3d 122, 125 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.). | 13 | 18 |
Ford v. City State Bank of Palaciosgreen2 sentences2006See Ford v. City State Bank of Palacios, 44 S.W.3d 121, 139 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 2001, no pet.); see also > Moore' Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 492 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tex. 1972). 2006See Ford v. City State Bank of Palacios, 44 S.W.3d 121, 139 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); see also ‘Moore’ Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 492 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tex.1972). | 3 | 3 |
Nagle v. Naglegreen2 sentences1996Promissory Estoppel In claiming that Norwest is barred from raising a statute of frauds defense, appellants evoke the promissory estop-pel doctrine as exemplified in Cobb v. West Texas Microwave Co., 700 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.App.—Austin 1985, writ ref d n.r.e.); see also Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex.1982). 1996Promissory Estoppel In claiming that Norwest is barred from raising a statute of frauds defense, appellants evoke the promissory estoppel doctrine as exemplified in Cobb v. West Texas Microwave Co. , 700 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.--Austin 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Nagle v. Nagle , 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex. 1982). | 2 | 5 |
Federal Land Bank Ass'n of Tyler v. Sloanegreen2 sentences2018See id. 2015The Court disagreed with the bank’s statute of frauds defense explaining, “The Sloanes do not claim that the bank agreed to loan them money and then breached that agreement; rather, they claim that the bank did not agree to loan them money, yet negligently misrepresented that it had made such an agreement.” Id. at 442 . | 2 | 3 |
Eland Energy, Inc. v. Rowden Oil & Gas, Inc.green2 sentences2026Accordingly, while we agree with Haskell that a contract that violates the statute of frauds is voidable, not void, see Troxel v. Bishop, 201 S.W.3d 290, 300 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Eland Energy, Inc. v. Rowden Oil & Gas, Inc., 914 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied), we conclude that Tsakiris LP, as a grantee of the property from Harris, had standing to assert the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds to challenge the prior real estate transaction between Haskell and Harris. 2015Town Park is not required to “repudiate” a non-existent agreement to have the statute of frauds bar the alleged verbal agreement. 11 In Eland Energy, Inc. v. Rowan Oil & Gas, Inc., 914 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied), cited by Amerigroup, there was a written agreement but one party alleged that the description of land in the agreement was too vague to be enforced. | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Kaiser v. Giffordgreen2 sentences2015The statute of frauds defense is unavailable to a party who knowingly accepts the benefits of another party’s full performance and partly performs. 626 Joint Venture v. Spinks, 873 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, no writ); Estate of Kaiser v. Gifford, 692 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 2004The statute of frauds defense is unavailable to a party who knowingly accepts the benefits of another party = s full performance and partly performs. 626 Joint Venture v. Spinks , 873 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Tex. App. C Austin, 1993 no writ); Estate of Kaiser v. Gifford , 692 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref = d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
626 Joint Venture v. Spinksgreen2 sentences2015The statute of frauds defense is unavailable to a party who knowingly accepts the benefits of another party’s full performance and partly performs. 626 Joint Venture v. Spinks, 873 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, no writ); Estate of Kaiser v. Gifford, 692 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 2004The statute of frauds defense is unavailable to a party who knowingly accepts the benefits of another party = s full performance and partly performs. 626 Joint Venture v. Spinks , 873 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Tex. App. C Austin, 1993 no writ); Estate of Kaiser v. Gifford , 692 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref = d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc.green2 sentences2011Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). 2011Beverick v. Koch Power Co., 186 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Enpro Systems, Ltd. v. Namasco Corp.green2 sentences2010See Enpro, 382 F. Supp. 2d at 880-81 . 2010See Enpro , 382 F. Supp. 2d at 880-81 . | 2 | 2 |
Sonnichsen v. Baylor Universitygreen2 sentences2003The doctrine is more commonly used, as it is here, counter-defensively by a plaintiff faced with the statute of frauds defense. " Moore" Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum, Co. , 492 S.W.2d 934, 936-37 (Tex. 1972); Sonnichsen v. Baylor Univ. , 47 S.W.3d 122, 125 (Tex. App.--Waco 2001, no pet.). 2003The doctrine is more commonly used, as it is here, counter-defensively by a plaintiff faced with the statute of frauds defense. “ Moore” Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum, Co. , 492 S.W.2d 934, 936-37 (Tex. 1972); Sonnichsen v. Baylor Univ. , 47 S.W.3d 122, 125 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd.green2 sentences2015Fuqua, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1942, writ ref’d) 12 Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale, Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429, 439 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied) 13 Hairston v. Southern Methodist Univ., 2013 WL 1803549 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied) 13 Magcobar N. American, v. Grasso Oilfield Svcs., 736 S.W.2d 787, 796 (Tex. App-Corpus Christi 1987, pet. denied) 14 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: STATEMENT OF CASE Cottrell contends that an email (“the Email”), sent by a representative of Burton, wherein possible buyers, potential commissions, uncertain sales prices, and ambiguously 2015Stovall, 409 S.W.3d. at 800 (citing Breezevale, 82 S.W.3d at 439 ). | 1 | 2 |
Carmack v. Beltway Development Co.green2 sentences2015Id. at 38. 1995Id. at 40 ; see Boyert, 834 S.W.2d at 63-64 . | 1 | 2 |
Collins v. Allied Pharmacy Management, Inc.green2 sentences1997See, e.g., Collins v. Allied Pharmacy Management, Inc., 871 S.W.2d 929, 937 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ) (“Promissory estoppel operates to preclude a statute of frauds defense only where the promise is to sign a written agreement complying with the statute.”). 1994See Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483, 489 (Tex.1991); Collins, 871 S.W.2d at 936-37 . | 1 | 2 |
Southmark Corporation v. Life Investors, Inc., and Uslico Corporationgreen2 sentences1997Co., 853 S.W.2d 791, 795 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1993, no writ) (promissory estoppel). 26 .See “Moore" Burger, 492 S.W.2d at 938 ; Harkinson v. Trammell Crow Co., 915 S.W.2d 28, 36 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1995), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 944 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.1997); see also Mann v. NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank, 854 S.W.2d 664, 668 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, no writ) (stating the party invoking the doctrine must show that the party raising the statute of frauds defense orally promised to sign a particular written document which had been prepared and which would satisfy the requirements of the s 1997Id. at 768 . 29 . | 1 | 2 |
Troxel v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2026Accordingly, while we agree with Haskell that a contract that violates the statute of frauds is voidable, not void, see Troxel v. Bishop, 201 S.W.3d 290, 300 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Eland Energy, Inc. v. Rowden Oil & Gas, Inc., 914 S.W.2d 179, 186 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied), we conclude that Tsakiris LP, as a grantee of the property from Harris, had standing to assert the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds to challenge the prior real estate transaction between Haskell and Harris. | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2026In “Moore” Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 492 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1972), the Texas Supreme Court stated: Although it is the general rule that a stranger to a contract cannot invoke the statute of frauds, Murphy v. Johnson, 439 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
English v. Fischergreen1 sentence2020We need not reach Cathy’s liability under this theory because we hold that she is liable for breach of contract. 8 “The requisites of promissory estoppel in Texas are[] (1) a promise[,] (2) foreseeability of reliance thereon by the promisor[,] and (3) substantial reliance by the promisees to their detriment.” Wade v. XTO Energy Inc., No. 02-12-00007-CV, 2013 WL 257361 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 24, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex. 1983)). 9 The findings that Pickel concedes are not supported by the record are findings 18 and 20. | 1 | 1 |
McGalliard v. Kuhlmanngreen1 sentence2016In re K.R.P., 80 S.W.3d 669, 673 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied); Waggoner v. Morrow, 932 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ); McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Waggoner v. Morrowgreen1 sentence2016In re K.R.P., 80 S.W.3d 669, 673 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied); Waggoner v. Morrow, 932 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ); McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.1986). | 1 | 1 |
In Re KRPgreen1 sentence2016In re K.R.P., 80 S.W.3d 669, 673 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied); Waggoner v. Morrow, 932 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ); McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Norwood v. Childressgreen | 1 | 1 |
Magcobar N. Amer v. Grasso Oilfield S.green1 sentence2015Fuqua, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1942, writ ref’d) 12 Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale, Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429, 439 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied) 13 Hairston v. Southern Methodist Univ., 2013 WL 1803549 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied) 13 Magcobar N. American, v. Grasso Oilfield Svcs., 736 S.W.2d 787, 796 (Tex. App-Corpus Christi 1987, pet. denied) 14 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: STATEMENT OF CASE Cottrell contends that an email (“the Email”), sent by a representative of Burton, wherein possible buyers, potential commissions, uncertain sales prices, and ambiguously | 1 | 1 |
| Ortiz v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Insurance Co.green1 sentence2015Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (noting long-standing rule that point may be waived due to inadequate briefing) Even if we were to consider Nanda’s complaint, we note that Nanda’s motion for continuance also failed to adequately identify the needed discovery or explain how it would be material to the statute of frauds defense. | 1 | 1 |
Maginn v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Maginn v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 164, 168 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, no writ.). | 1 | 1 |
Landis v. W. H. Fuqua, Inc.green1 sentence2015Fuqua, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1942, writ ref’d) 12 Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale, Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429, 439 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied) 13 Hairston v. Southern Methodist Univ., 2013 WL 1803549 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied) 13 Magcobar N. American, v. Grasso Oilfield Svcs., 736 S.W.2d 787, 796 (Tex. App-Corpus Christi 1987, pet. denied) 14 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: STATEMENT OF CASE Cottrell contends that an email (“the Email”), sent by a representative of Burton, wherein possible buyers, potential commissions, uncertain sales prices, and ambiguously | 1 | 1 |
| Lam v. PHUONG NGUYENgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Kiefergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sullivan v. Barnettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Enochs v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roark v. STALLWORTH OIL AND GAS, INCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leach v. Conoco, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Keriotis v. Lombardo Rental Trustgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beta Drilling, Inc. v. Durkeegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Texas Pacific Indemnity Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Mann v. NCNB Texas National Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harkinson v. Trammell Crow Co. No. 60green | 1 | 1 |
| Boyert v. Taubergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc.red | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lovett v. Lovett
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 392 . 2010Id. at 392 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Cobb v. West Texas Microwave Co.
green
2 sentences1996Promissory Estoppel In claiming that Norwest is barred from raising a statute of frauds defense, appellants evoke the promissory estop-pel doctrine as exemplified in Cobb v. West Texas Microwave Co., 700 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.App.—Austin 1985, writ ref d n.r.e.); see also Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex.1982). 1996Promissory Estoppel In claiming that Norwest is barred from raising a statute of frauds defense, appellants evoke the promissory estoppel doctrine as exemplified in Cobb v. West Texas Microwave Co. , 700 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.--Austin 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Nagle v. Nagle , 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex. 1982). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Coastal Corp. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences1995Coastal Corp., 852 S.W.2d at 718 . 1994Coastal Corp., 852 S.W.2d at 718-19 ; see also Southmark Corp. v. Life Investors, Inc., 851 F.2d 763, 769 (5th Cir.1988) (applying Texas law). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Richardson v. Iley
green
1 sentence2026See “Moore” Burger, Inc., 492 S.W.2d at 938–39; Richardson, 299 S.W.2d at 188–89. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United Savings Association of Texas v. Wieler
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bank of Texas, N.A. v. Gaubert
green
2 sentences2025Similarly, when addressing a temporary injunction in Bank of Tex., N.A. v. Gaubert, 286 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. dism’d w.o.j.), the court examined “a probable right to relief on his claims in light of the statute of frauds defense,” which is an affirmative defense. 2025Id. at 552 ; TEX. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Stovall & Associates, P.C. v. Hibbs Financial Center, Ltd. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| James Hairston, Individually and Next Friend of E.H, a Minor v. Southern Methodist University, and Brent Erwin green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Choi v. McKenzie green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Gerstacker v. Blum Consulting Engineers, Inc. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| CRSS INC. v. Runion green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Trammell Crow Co. No. 60 v. Harkinson green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Dodson v. Kung green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| McDonald v. Whaley neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| O'Boyle v. Stanfield neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Rankin v. Naftalis green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Consolidated Gas & Equipment Co. of America v. Thompson green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Tyra v. Woodson green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Woodward v. Harlin green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Morris v. Gaines green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Hooks v. Bridgewater green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| DALLAS TITLE & GUARANTY COMPANY v. Jarrell neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Stillman v. Hirsch neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Lemmon v. Box green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Stillman v. Hirsch green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Murphy v. Slaton green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| West v. Sims neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Janes v. Rogers green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Wilson v. Starbuck green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Enfield Realty & Home Bldg. Co. v. Hunter neutral | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Paschall v. Anderson green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Adams v. Hughes neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.