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 1 courts 2012–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Challenger Gamin Solutions,Inc. & the Accent Group, Inc. v. Karen Earpgreen2 sentences2024Challenger Gaming Solutions, Inc. v. Earp, 402 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.); Arriaga v. Cartmill, 407 S.W.3d 927, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). “[T]he focus of an UFTA claim is to ensure the satisfaction of a creditor’s claim when the elements of a fraudulent transfer are proven.” Challenger Gaming Solutions, 402 S.W.3d at 298 . 2024Challenger Gaming Solutions, Inc. v. Earp, 402 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.); Arriaga v. Cartmill, 407 S.W.3d 927, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). “[T]he focus of an UFTA claim is to ensure the satisfaction of a creditor’s claim when the elements of a fraudulent transfer are proven.” Challenger Gaming Solutions, 402 S.W.3d at 298 . | 4 | 4 |
Michelle M. Arriaga v. Robert A. Cartmill, Troy Cartmill and Travis Cartmillgreen2 sentences2024Challenger Gaming Solutions, Inc. v. Earp, 402 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.); Arriaga v. Cartmill, 407 S.W.3d 927, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). “[T]he focus of an UFTA claim is to ensure the satisfaction of a creditor’s claim when the elements of a fraudulent transfer are proven.” Challenger Gaming Solutions, 402 S.W.3d at 298 . 2024Challenger Gaming Solutions, Inc. v. Earp, 402 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.); Arriaga v. Cartmill, 407 S.W.3d 927, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). “[T]he focus of an UFTA claim is to ensure the satisfaction of a creditor’s claim when the elements of a fraudulent transfer are proven.” Challenger Gaming Solutions, 402 S.W.3d at 298 . | 2 | 2 |
Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp.green1 sentence2020To hold otherwise would be akin to violating the invited error doctrine, which dictates that “a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested.” Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005).8 8 We do not suggest that Enshikar takes a different position on appeal; rather, throughout this litigation, he has consistently sought the full amount of the 2015 judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Telephone Equipment Network, Inc. v. Ta/Westchase Place, Ltd.green1 sentence2014Network, Inc. v. TA/Westchase Place, Ltd., 80 S.W.3d 601, 609 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (where creditor prevails on merits of UFTA claim, transfer is voidable under section 24.008). | 1 | 1 |
Galbraith Engineering Consultants, Inc. v. Pochuchagreen2 sentences2013See Galbraith Eng’g, 290 S.W.3d at 868 n. 6 (“As one commentator has observed ‘[t]he thrust of the 2003 statute [chapter 33] is that the jury should allocate responsibility among all persons who are responsible for the claimant’s injury.’ ”) (quoting 19 William V. 2013See Galbraith Eng’g, 290 S.W.3d at 868 n. 6 (“As one commentator has observed ‘[t]he thrust of the 2003 statute [chapter 33] is that the jury should allocate responsibility among all persons who are responsible for the claimant’s injury.’ ”) (quoting 19 William V. | 1 | 1 |
Essex Crane Rental Corp. and Vincent A. Morano v. Kenneth Beverlygreen2 sentences2013See Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). 9 In their third issue, appellant assert the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court‘s finding that they were liable for ―breach of constructive trust.‖ Because the trial court‘s judgment may be affirmed based upon the UFTA claim and conspiracy, we need not and do not address issue three. 15 IV. 2013See Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). 9 In their third issue, appellant assert the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court‘s finding that they were liable for ―breach of constructive trust.‖ Because the trial court‘s judgment may be affirmed based upon the UFTA claim and conspiracy, we need not and do not address issue three. 15 IV. | 1 | 1 |
Airflow Houston, Inc. v. Theriotgreen1 sentence2012See Patel v. Kuciemba, 82 S.W.3d 589, 599 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied) (explaining theoretical maximum amount of UFTA claim based on defaulted note would be actual amount due on note); Airflow Houston, Inc. v. Theriot, 849 S.W.2d 928, 934 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (concluding *91 amount due on note plus accrued interest were proper damages under UFTA). | 1 | 1 |
Patel v. Kuciembagreen1 sentence2012See Patel v. Kuciemba, 82 S.W.3d 589, 599 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied) (explaining theoretical maximum amount of UFTA claim based on defaulted note would be actual amount due on note); Airflow Houston, Inc. v. Theriot, 849 S.W.2d 928, 934 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (concluding *91 amount due on note plus accrued interest were proper damages under UFTA). | 1 | 1 |
Sysco Food Services, Inc. v. Trapnellgreen1 sentence2012See Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex.1994) (explaining collateral estoppel applies when issue sought to be litigated was already fully litigated in previous action). 19 . | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Andersongreen1 sentence2012See Walker, 232 S.W.3d at 912-13 (holding UFTA claim not barred by res judicata because not based on same operative facts as fraud claim resolved in previous action). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Pedro Impulsora De Inmuebles Especiales, S.A. De C v. v. Villarreal
green
2 sentences2013“Even if minimum contacts are present, a trial court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if it would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Villarreal, 330 S.W.3d at 38 . 2013“Even if minimum contacts are present, a trial court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if it would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Villarreal, 330 S.W.3d at 38 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.