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.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2018 0 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 Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vista Community Medical Center, LLPgreen2 sentences2015Ctr., L.L.P., 275 S.W.3d 538, 556 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet.) (“The 2005 Staff Report did not affect private rights because it did not change or amend” a formally promulgated rule). 13 C. 2015Ctr., L.L.P., 275 S.W.3d 538, 556 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no pet.) (“The 2005 Staff Report did not affect private rights because it did not change or amend” a formally promulgated rule). © 2015 Thomson Reuters. | 4 | 4 |
Grocers Supply Co., Inc. v. Sharpgreen2 sentences2005See Moore , 845 S.W.2d at 823 (agency's construction of statute entitled to deference as long as does not contradict statutory language); Grocers Supply Co., Inc. v. Sharp , 978 S.W.2d 638, 642 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. denied) (Comptroller's informal change in policy of how rule enforced did not "informally contravene the express terms of a formally promulgated rule."). 2005See Moore, 845 S.W.2d at 823 (agency’s construction of statute entitled to deference as long as does not contradict statutory language); Grocers Supply Co., Inc. v. Sharp, 978 S.W.2d 638, 642 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet. denied) (Comptroller’s informal change in policy of how rule enforced did not “informally contravene the express terms of a formally promulgated rule.”). | 3 | 3 |
Tarrant Appraisal District v. Mooregreen2 sentences2005See Moore , 845 S.W.2d at 823 (agency's construction of statute entitled to deference as long as does not contradict statutory language); Grocers Supply Co., Inc. v. Sharp , 978 S.W.2d 638, 642 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. denied) (Comptroller's informal change in policy of how rule enforced did not "informally contravene the express terms of a formally promulgated rule."). 2005See Moore, 845 S.W.2d at 823 (agency’s construction of statute entitled to deference as long as does not contradict statutory language); Grocers Supply Co., Inc. v. Sharp, 978 S.W.2d 638, 642 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet. denied) (Comptroller’s informal change in policy of how rule enforced did not “informally contravene the express terms of a formally promulgated rule.”). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015But leaving aside the merits of these assertions by the Vista Court, see Sunset Transp., 357 S.W.3d at 704 (citing Vista as example where the distinction between “a mere restatement of a formally promulgated rule” and “a statement that is itself a ‘rule’ ” was “elusive”), they can be classified as dicta given the Court’s preceding holding that the memorandum was not a “state agency statement” at all. 2014But leaving aside the merits of these assertions by the Vista Court, see Sunset Transp., 357 S.W.3d at 704 (citing Vista as example where the distinction between "a mere restatement of a formally promulgated rule” and "a statement that is itself a ‘rule’ ” was "elusive”), they can be classified as dicta given the Court’s preceding holding that the memorandum was not a "state agency statement” at all. | 3 | 2014–2018 |
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.