66 Texas opinions name it 6 courts 1949–2026 17 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 |
|---|---|---|
Compass Bank v. MFP Financial Services, Inc.green2 sentences2013Services, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 844, 851 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (“The party asserting an affirmative defense bears the burden of pleading and proving its elements.”). 2009The party asserting an affirmative defense bears the burden of pleading and proving its elements; Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 481 (Tex.2001); Compass Bank v. MFP Financial Services, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 844, 851 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied), and, absent trial by consent, 10 filing a general denial or failing to plead a matter of affirmative defense will constitute waiver of that defense. | 9 | 9 |
Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toenniesgreen2 sentences2009The party asserting an affirmative defense bears the burden of pleading and proving its elements; Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 481 (Tex.2001); Compass Bank v. MFP Financial Services, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 844, 851 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied), and, absent trial by consent, 10 filing a general denial or failing to plead a matter of affirmative defense will constitute waiver of that defense. 2009The party asserting an affirmative defense bears the burden of pleading and proving its elements; Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 481 (Tex. 2001); Compass Bank v. MFP Financial Services, Inc. , 152 S.W.3d 844, 851 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2005, pet. denied) , and, a bsent trial by consent, (footnote: 10) filing a general denial or failing to plead a matter of affirmative defense will constitute waiver of that defense. | 7 | 7 |
Montgomery v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2026Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex. 1984); see also Tex. R. 2021Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex. 1984); see also Tex. R. | 4 | 4 |
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2024Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Nichols, 819 S.W.2d 900, 907 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ denied). 2022Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Nichols, 819 S.W.2d 900, 907 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ denied). | 4 | 4 |
Welch v. Hrabargreen2 sentences2022See Welch v. Hrabar, 110 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). 2016Welch v. Hrabar, 110 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). | 4 | 4 |
Cooper v. Cochrangreen2 sentences2022“A party who fails to secure findings to sustain his plea of limitations waives the defense.” Id. (citing Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (concluding party waived statute of limitations defense where he never requested any relevant findings of fact); Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt, 267 S.W.3d 150, 162 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (citing Woods, 769 S.W.2d at 517 , in concluding same)); see also Cooper, 288 S.W.3d at 531 (“A party asserting an affirmative defense in a trial before the court must request findings in support of the defense to avoid 2022“A party who fails to secure findings to sustain his plea of limitations waives the defense.” Id. (citing Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (concluding party waived statute of limitations defense where he never requested any relevant findings of fact); Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt, 267 S.W.3d 150, 162 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (citing Woods, 769 S.W.2d at 517 , in concluding same)); see also Cooper, 288 S.W.3d at 531 (“A party asserting an affirmative defense in a trial before the court must request findings in support of the defense to avoid | 4 | 4 |
Alma Investments, Inc. v. Bahia Mar Co-Owners Ass'ngreen2 sentences2022“A party who fails to secure findings to sustain his plea of limitations waives the defense.” Id. (citing Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (concluding party waived statute of limitations defense where he never requested any relevant findings of fact); Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt, 267 S.W.3d 150, 162 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (citing Woods, 769 S.W.2d at 517 , in concluding same)); see also Cooper, 288 S.W.3d at 531 (“A party asserting an affirmative defense in a trial before the court must request findings in support of the defense to avoid 2009See Alma Invs., Inc. v. Bahia Mar Co-Owners Ass’n, 999 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied). | 3 | 3 |
Brown v. Zimmermangreen2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 XCO Production Co. v. Jamison, 194 S.W.3d 622 (2006) 163 Oil & Gas Rep. 605 515, 517 (Tex.1988) (limitations is an affirmative defense, which the asserting party must prove); Brown v. Zimmerman, 160 S.W.3d 695, 702 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (the party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of pleading and proving its elements). 2006Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex.1988) (limitations is an affirmative defense, which the asserting party must prove); Brown v. Zimmerman, 160 S.W.3d 695, 702 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (the party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of pleading and proving its elements). | 3 | 3 |
Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc.green2 sentences2022“A party who fails to secure findings to sustain his plea of limitations waives the defense.” Id. (citing Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (concluding party waived statute of limitations defense where he never requested any relevant findings of fact); Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt, 267 S.W.3d 150, 162 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (citing Woods, 769 S.W.2d at 517 , in concluding same)); see also Cooper, 288 S.W.3d at 531 (“A party asserting an affirmative defense in a trial before the court must request findings in support of the defense to avoid 2022“A party who fails to secure findings to sustain his plea of limitations waives the defense.” Id. (citing Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (concluding party waived statute of limitations defense where he never requested any relevant findings of fact); Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt, 267 S.W.3d 150, 162 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (citing Woods, 769 S.W.2d at 517 , in concluding same)); see also Cooper, 288 S.W.3d at 531 (“A party asserting an affirmative defense in a trial before the court must request findings in support of the defense to avoid | 2 | 3 |
Trelltex, Inc. v. Intecx, L.L.C.green2 sentences2022See Trelltex, Inc. v. Intecx, L.L.C., 494 S.W.3d 781, 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“a party asserting an affirmative defense in a bench trial must request findings in support of that defense in order to avoid waiver on appeal”); see also Tagle v. Galvan, 155 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (“a properly prepared request for findings or additional findings specifically drawing a trial court’s attention to the Harris County/Casteel problem will likely be sufficient to preserve error”). 2022Trelltex, Inc. v. Intecx, L.L.C., 494 S.W.3d 781, 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Hill v. Heritage Resources, Inc.green2 sentences2020See Hill v. Heritage Res., Inc., 964 S.W.2d 89, 137 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, pet. denied). 10 To successfully assert the affirmative defense of res judicata, a party must prove: (1) a final prior judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the identity of the parties, or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were or could have been raised in the first action. 2019See Hill v. Heritage Res., Inc., 964 S.W.2d 89, 137 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, pet. denied). 19 To successfully assert the affirmative defense of res judicata, a party must prove: (1) a final prior judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the identity of the parties, or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were or could have been raised in the first action. | 2 | 2 |
Berthelot v. Brinkmanngreen2 sentences2019Berthelot v. Brinkmann, 322 S.W.3d 365, 369 (Tex. App.−Dallas 2010, pet. denied). 2019Berthelot v. Brinkmann, 322 S.W.3d 365, 369 (Tex. App.−Dallas 2010, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc.green2 sentences2012Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.); Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 687, 708 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). 2007“A party asserting an affirmative defense, such as mitigation, in a trial before the court must request findings in support thereof to avoid waiver.” Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 687, 708 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Intec Systems, Inc. v. Lowreygreen2 sentences2011Intec Sys. v. Lowrey, 230 S.W.3d 913, 918 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). 2011Intec Sys. v. Lowrey , 230 S.W.3d 913, 918 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Russell v. City of Bryangreen2 sentences2006Russell v. City of Brian , 919 S.W.2d 698, 704 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied). 2006Russell v. City of Bryan, 919 S.W.2d 698, 704 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied). | 2 | 2 |
Vance v. Popkowskigreen1 sentence2026“A party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden to plead, prove, and secure findings to sustain its affirmative defense.” Vance v. Popkowski, 534 S.W.3d 474, 481 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Warner Lambert Co.green1 sentence2025Christus Health v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc., 359 S.W.3d 719, 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see Mills v. Warner Lambert Co., 157 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (stating that federal preemption is ordinarily defense to plaintiff’s suit but does not deprive state court of jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
CHRISTUS Health D/B/A Uniform Services Family Health Plan v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc.green1 sentence2025Christus Health v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc., 359 S.W.3d 719, 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see Mills v. Warner Lambert Co., 157 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (stating that federal preemption is ordinarily defense to plaintiff’s suit but does not deprive state court of jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
RM Crowe Property Services Co. v. Strategic Energy, L.L.C.green1 sentence2023Co., L.P. v. Strategic Energy, L.L.C., 348 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (“A party asserting an affirmative defense in a trial before the court must request findings in support of the defense to avoid waiver of its affirmative defense.”). | 1 | 1 |
ESTATE OF Gilbert M. DENMAN Jr., Deceasedgreen1 sentence2022See In re Estate of Denman, 362 S.W.3d 134 , 144–45 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (Stating that the party asserting an affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations must prove: “(1) the date on which the limitations period commenced . . ., and (2) that the plaintiff filed its peititon outside the applicable limitations period”). | 1 | 1 |
Medistar Corp. v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2022“A party who fails to secure findings to sustain his plea of limitations waives the defense.” Id. (citing Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (concluding party waived statute of limitations defense where he never requested any relevant findings of fact); Medistar Corp. v. Schmidt, 267 S.W.3d 150, 162 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied) (citing Woods, 769 S.W.2d at 517 , in concluding same)); see also Cooper, 288 S.W.3d at 531 (“A party asserting an affirmative defense in a trial before the court must request findings in support of the defense to avoid | 1 | 1 |
Tagle v. Galvangreen1 sentence2022See Trelltex, Inc. v. Intecx, L.L.C., 494 S.W.3d 781, 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“a party asserting an affirmative defense in a bench trial must request findings in support of that defense in order to avoid waiver on appeal”); see also Tagle v. Galvan, 155 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (“a properly prepared request for findings or additional findings specifically drawing a trial court’s attention to the Harris County/Casteel problem will likely be sufficient to preserve error”). | 1 | 1 |
Chavez v. City of San Antonio Ex Rel. City of Public Service Boardgreen1 sentence2021Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex. 1984); Chavez v. City of San Antonio ex rel. v. City Public Service Bd. of San Antonio, 21 S.W.3d 435, 438 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied); see also Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. COOKIE COLEMAN CATTLE CO., INC.green1 sentence2019Owners Ass’n, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 730, 743 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. denied); Carter v. Cookie Coleman Cattle Co., 271 S.W.3d 856, 858 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Carl Storck and Vicki Storck v. Tres Lagos Property Owners Association, Inc.green1 sentence2019Owners Ass’n, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 730, 743 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. denied); Carter v. Cookie Coleman Cattle Co., 271 S.W.3d 856, 858 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Madison v. Gordongreen1 sentence2019A buyer’s status as a bona fide purchaser is an affirmative defense, Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Tex. 2001), and a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of proving the defense, Storck v. Tres Lagos Prop. | 1 | 1 |
| Baeza v. Hector's Tire & Wrecker Service, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| XCO Production Co. v. Jamisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hill v. Bartlettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Garner v. Fidelity Bank N.A.green | 1 | 1 |
| Stanley Works v. Wichita Falls Independent School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brownlee v. Brownleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sani v. Powellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. National Mortgage Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Augusta Development Co. v. Fish Oil Well Servicing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| 1st Coppell Bank v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hill v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Seale v. Nicholsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Dunn
green
2 sentences1972Co. v. Dunn, 148 Tex. 197 , 222 S.W.2d 985 (1949), held that it was incumbent upon a party asserting an affirmative defense to see that the jury answers all essential elements of the defense in his favor, or to object to the submission of the case to the jury in such manner that an answer on an essential element will be prevented. 1972Co. v. Dunn, 148 Tex. 197 , 222 S.W.2d 985 (1949), held that it was incumbent upon a party asserting an affirmative defense to see that the jury answers all essential elements of the defense in his favor, or to object to the submission of the case to the jury in such manner that an answer on an essential element will be prevented. | 5 | 1956–1972 |
Nowak v. DAS Investment Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2018Ordinarily, the party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of both pleading and proving the defense. 6 Id. | 3 | 2016–2024 |
Pagosa Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. Marrs & Smith Partnership
green
1 sentence2018Pagosa Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. Marrs & Smith P'ship , 323 S.W.3d 203 , 219 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010, pet. denied) ; see also Baeza v. Hector's Tire and Wrecker Service, Inc. , 471 S.W.3d 585 , 591 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015, no pet.) (explaining how the defendant asserting the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction has the burden of proof to establish its existence). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sergeant Mary Haver and Deputy Constable Kevin Vailes, in Their Individually Capacities v. Barbara Coats
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Bay Petroleum Corp. v. Crumpler green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Ray green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.