Doe defendant (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Doe defendant in Texas

9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re Does 1-10green
texapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024
2 sentences

2024See id. (citing In re Does 1–10, 242 S.W.3d 805, 814 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, orig. proceeding) (noting that “in most cases involving Internet lawsuits based on libel or breach of contract, the scenario is that suit is brought against a Doe defendant, and the plaintiff at some point early in the proceeding seeks to discover his or her identity . . . through the discovery tools of that forum”)).

2022See In re Does 1–10, 242 S.W.3d 805, 814 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, orig. proceeding) (noting that “in most cases involving Internet lawsuits based on libel or breach of contract, the scenario is that suit is brought against a Doe defendant, and the plaintiff at some point early in the proceeding seeks to discover his or her identity . . . through the discovery tools of that forum”).

33
Glassdoor, Inc., Doe 1, and Doe 2 v. Andra Group, Lpgreen
tex · 2019 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See id. (citing In re Does 1–10, 242 S.W.3d 805, 814 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, orig. proceeding) (noting that “in most cases involving Internet lawsuits based on libel or breach of contract, the scenario is that suit is brought against a Doe defendant, and the plaintiff at some point early in the proceeding seeks to discover his or her identity . . . through the discovery tools of that forum”)).

11
Moveforfree.com, Inc. v. David Hetrick, Inc.green
texapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019The Johnson County trial court granted Doe’s motion and Bovee challenges this determination on appeal. 1 Bovee’s remaining issues assert the Harris County trial court erred by (1) granting Doe’s motion to dismiss; (2) dismissing Bovee’s claims “with prejudice;” (3) failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) dismissing defendants Voice Media Group and Dawn Denny. 2 Additionally, the propriety of withholding judgment on the merits of such matters is further supported by the inescapable conclusion that the Waco Court of Appeals should adjudicate such merits absent a transfer

2019The Johnson County trial court granted Doe’s motion and Bovee challenges this determination on appeal. 1 Bovee’s remaining issues assert the Harris County trial court erred by (1) granting Doe’s motion to dismiss; (2) dismissing Bovee’s claims “with prejudice;” (3) failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) dismissing defendants Voice Media Group and Dawn Denny. 2 Additionally, the propriety of withholding judgment on the merits of such matters is further supported by the inescapable conclusion that the Waco Court of Appeals should adjudicate such merits absent a transfer

11
Johnson v. Davisgreen
texapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019When examining motions to transfer venue, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and, “if there is any probative evidence in the record that venue was proper in the county in which the lower court rendered judgment, we must uphold the trial court’s venue determination.” Johnson v. Davis, 178 S.W.3d 230, 236 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).

11
First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-76green
ilnd · 2011 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014June 26, 2013) (personal jurisdiction ruling would be “premature” absent identity of Doe defendants); First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1–76, 276 F.R.D. 254, 259 (N.D.

11
Kilroy v. Kilroygreen
texapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013See Kilroy v. Kilroy, 137 S.W.3d 780, 783 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 3 Doe’s brief does not request that his appeal be considered, in the alternative, as a petition for writ of mandamus, nor has he filed a petition for writ of mandamus separate from his appeal. 4 We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

11
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. Ferrellgreen
tex · 2007 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151, 152 (Tex. 2007). 1 The expunction court assigned Doe’s motion to enforce a new cause number. 2 The trial court did, however, conduct a preliminary hearing regarding whether to proceed with contempt.

11
Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellengreen
tex · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See id. .

2001See id. [4] Section 255.001 states: (a) A person may not knowingly enter into a contract or other agreement to print, publish, or broadcast political advertising that does not indicate in the advertising: (1) that it is political advertising; (2) the full name of either the individual who personally entered into the contract or agreement with the printer, publisher or broadcaster or the person that individual represents; and (3) in the case of advertising that is printed or published, the address of either the individual who personally entered into the agreement with the printer or publisher o

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality green
texapp · 2010
1 sentence

2016Doe cannot collaterally attack the hearing officer’s determination through a declaratory action, because UDJA claims generally cannot provide “relief against agency orders from which the legislature has not granted a right of judicial review and thereby waived sovereign immunity.” Creedmoor-Maha, 307 S.W.3d at 515 .

12016–2016
City of LaPorte v. Barfield red
tex · 1995
1 sentence

1999Legislative intent remains the polestar of statutory construction.” Id. at 292 . *893 TDH argues that only the limited waivers of governmental immunity contained in the Texas Tort Claims Act could support Doe’s claim, and that her claim does not fall within the waivers of immunity provided in that law.

11999–1999

Where else courts name it

CA 197 (1960–2026) MA 29 (1996–2026) NY 22 (2012–2026) NJ 17 (1986–2025) ID 15 (1989–2025) HI 12 (1982–2025) NV 10 (1991–2020) GA 9 (1996–2024) TX 9 (1999–2024) SC 8 (1999–2021) WI 7 (1983–2024) IL 6 (2009–2025) MO 6 (2007–2024) AZ 6 (2007–2025) OH 4 (2002–2024) FL 4 (1998–2015) MD 4 (2009–2018) IA 4 (2004–2018) ME 4 (2008–2025) PA 3 (2007–2024) DC 3 (1990–2008) DE 3 (2018–2025) WV 2 (2001–2017) SD 2 (1999–2003) MS 2 (2008–2010) WA 2 (1994–2017) IN 2 (1998–2003) NH 2 (2004–2016) NE 2 (2022–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check