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.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Houston v. Blackbirdgreen2 sentences2013P. 251 (“No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by 9 consent of the parties, or by operation of law.”); City of Houston v. Blackbird, 658 S.W.2d 269, 272 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ dism’d) (holding that when appellant’s motion for continuance did not comply with Rule 251 because it was not verified, appellate court must presume that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion). 2009P. 251 ("No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law."); see also Mathew v. McCoy , 847 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that a motion for continuance must be verified and that the court of appeals must presume the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance that was not verified) (citing Villegas v. Carter , 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1 | 3 | 3 |
Villegas v. Cartergreen2 sentences2009P. 251 (“No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.”); see also Mathew v. McCoy, 847 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that a motion for continuance must be verified and that the court of appeals must presume the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance that was not verified) (citing Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 198 2009P. 251 ("No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law."); see also Mathew v. McCoy , 847 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that a motion for continuance must be verified and that the court of appeals must presume the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance that was not verified) (citing Villegas v. Carter , 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1 | 2 | 2 |
Mathew v. McCoygreen2 sentences2009P. 251 (“No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.”); see also Mathew v. McCoy, 847 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that a motion for continuance must be verified and that the court of appeals must presume the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance that was not verified) (citing Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 198 2009P. 251 ("No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law."); see also Mathew v. McCoy , 847 S.W.2d 397, 399-400 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that a motion for continuance must be verified and that the court of appeals must presume the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance that was not verified) (citing Villegas v. Carter , 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1 | 2 | 2 |
Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc.green1 sentence2026Martin v. Martin, Civ. P. 251 (“No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.”). 8 Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. 1998). “[I]f a party receives notice that is untimely, but sufficient to enable the party to attend the summary judgment hearing, the party must file a motion for continuance and/or raise the complaint of late notice in writing, supported by affidavit evidence, and raise the issue | 1 | 1 |
Fertic v. Spencergreen1 sentence2026Martin v. Martin, Civ. P. 251 (“No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.”). 8 Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. 1998). “[I]f a party receives notice that is untimely, but sufficient to enable the party to attend the summary judgment hearing, the party must file a motion for continuance and/or raise the complaint of late notice in writing, supported by affidavit evidence, and raise the issue | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yarto v. Gilliland
green
2 sentences2014“No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.” Id. 2014“No application for a continuance shall be heard before the defendant files his defense, nor shall any continuance be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.” Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Payne v. Latham
green
1 sentence1936Payne v. Latham (Tex.Civ.App.) 8 S.W.(2d) 326 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.