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 1884–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Health & Human Services Commission v. Advocates for Patient Access, Inc.green1 sentence2022Comm’n v. Advocates for Patient Access, Inc., 399 S.W.3d 615, 625 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.)).5 STVC concedes this point in its Reply brief. | 1 | 1 |
TEXAS DMHMR v. Petty by Kauffmangreen1 sentence2022In its Reply brief, Triple B argues that deference to the Legislature should not be “an abdication or acknowledgement [that] the Legislature is the authority on immunity.” That said, Triple B acknowledges in its Reply Brief that abolishing governmental immunity from breach of contract lawsuits is beyond the reach of this Court. 9 Citing Tex. Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Petty, 848 S.W.2d 680, 687 (Tex. 1992) (Cornyn, J., dissenting), and Calhoun v. Pasadena Indep. | 1 | 1 |
City of Houston v. Allco, Inc.green1 sentence2022In its Reply brief, Triple B argues that the City’s plea to the jurisdiction “did not challenge any pleaded jurisdictional facts, nor did it challenge the existence of jurisdictional facts.” Triple B also argues that “[t]he trial court implicitly tried to make Triple B put on its case to establish jurisdiction and it considered and gave credit to evidence that was irrelevant to a plea to the jurisdiction.” 8 Citing to Cty. of Galveston v. Triple B Services, LLP, 498 S.W.3d 176, 185 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); City of Houston v. Allco, Inc., 238 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App. | 1 | 1 |
County of Galveston v. Triple B Services, LLPgreen1 sentence2022In its Reply brief, Triple B argues that the City’s plea to the jurisdiction “did not challenge any pleaded jurisdictional facts, nor did it challenge the existence of jurisdictional facts.” Triple B also argues that “[t]he trial court implicitly tried to make Triple B put on its case to establish jurisdiction and it considered and gave credit to evidence that was irrelevant to a plea to the jurisdiction.” 8 Citing to Cty. of Galveston v. Triple B Services, LLP, 498 S.W.3d 176, 185 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); City of Houston v. Allco, Inc., 238 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2015Justice Chapa, in her dissenting opinion, quoting Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2490 (2014), was aware of Ford’s briefed complaints when she wrote “[h]istoric location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building.” Although less precise than GPS records, see Jones, 132 S.Ct. at 955 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); see also id. at 963 (Alito, J., concurring in judgment), Ford also complained that the historic cell site data compiled by cell phone providers 2015Justice Chapa, in her dissenting opinion, quoting Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2490 (2014), was aware of Ford’s briefed complaints when she wrote “[h]istoric location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building.” Although less precise than GPS records, see Jones, 132 S.Ct. at 955 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); see also id. at 963 (Alito, J., concurring in judgment), Ford also complained that the historic cell site data compiled by cell phone providers | 1 | 1 |
Riley v. Cal. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015Justice Chapa, in her dissenting opinion, quoting Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2490 (2014), was aware of Ford’s briefed complaints when she wrote “[h]istoric location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building.” Although less precise than GPS records, see Jones, 132 S.Ct. at 955 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); see also id. at 963 (Alito, J., concurring in judgment), Ford also complained that the historic cell site data compiled by cell phone providers | 1 | 1 |
Tilbury v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Id.; accord, Tilbury v. State, 890 S.W.2d 219, 223-24 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1994, no hist.) (holding the argument proper because it did not accuse defense counsel of manufacturing evidence but of manufacturing reasonable doubt); Fegurgur v. State, 734 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.App.— Austin 1987, no pet.) (holding the prosecutor’s statement that “not once did she [defense counsel] ever give you any reason why this self-serving exculpatory ... pack of lies that her client told ... | 1 | 1 |
Fegurgur v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Id.; accord, Tilbury v. State, 890 S.W.2d 219, 223-24 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1994, no hist.) (holding the argument proper because it did not accuse defense counsel of manufacturing evidence but of manufacturing reasonable doubt); Fegurgur v. State, 734 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.App.— Austin 1987, no pet.) (holding the prosecutor’s statement that “not once did she [defense counsel] ever give you any reason why this self-serving exculpatory ... pack of lies that her client told ... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Di Ferrante
green
1 sentence2023See Unifund CCR, LLC v. Whitaker, No. 09-19-00420-CV, 2021 Tex. App. 3 Appellant did not file a Reply brief. 11 LEXIS 10190 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); Young, 553 S.W.3d at 128 (citing Tex. R. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Perry Homes v. Cull
green
1 sentence2019Comparing Vectra’s conduct to the conduct of the plaintiffs in Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008), Adema asserted Vectra’s conduct prejudiced him as Vectra “sought to have it both ways by switching between litigation and arbitration to its own advantage[,] obtain[ing] extensive discovery under one set of rules and now seek[ing] to arbitrate . . . under another, delay[ing] disposition by switching to arbitration when trial was imminent, and obtain[ing] orders from the court while limiting [his] and [Chintam’s] rights to appellate review.”5 In a reply and at the hearing on the motio | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Nichols v. State
green
1 sentence1984In Nichols v. State, 504 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), the court’s reply to defense counsel’s objection to prosecutorial argument was “The jury will have to remember the testimony”. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Childress v. Grim
green
1 sentence1894Childress v. Grim, 57 Texas, 56 ; Ortiz v. Benavides, 61 Texas, 60 . | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Ortiz v. de Benavides
neutral
1 sentence1894Childress v. Grim, 57 Texas, 56 ; Ortiz v. Benavides, 61 Texas, 60 . | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Thomas v. Porter
neutral
1 sentence1884Childress v. Grim, 57 Texas 59 . | 1 | 1884–1884 |
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.