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 1938–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See id. (quoting Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 , 488–89 Tex. Crim. 2013See Martin, 335 S.W.3d at 875 -76 (quoting Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 488-89 (Tex.Crim.App.2011)). | 2 | 4 |
Gaither v. Davisgreen1 sentence2017Ferguson was, in fact, sued for misappropriation of funds.63 Ghrist also has attorney immunity, which is an unqualified defense even to 62 Jenevein v. Friedman, 114 S.W.3d 743, 747 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003); Bell v. Lee, 49 S.W.3d 8, 10-11 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001); Gaither v. Davis, 582 S.W.2d 913, 913 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Jenevein v. Friedmangreen1 sentence2017Ferguson was, in fact, sued for misappropriation of funds.63 Ghrist also has attorney immunity, which is an unqualified defense even to 62 Jenevein v. Friedman, 114 S.W.3d 743, 747 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003); Bell v. Lee, 49 S.W.3d 8, 10-11 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001); Gaither v. Davis, 582 S.W.2d 913, 913 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Leegreen1 sentence2017Ferguson was, in fact, sued for misappropriation of funds.63 Ghrist also has attorney immunity, which is an unqualified defense even to 62 Jenevein v. Friedman, 114 S.W.3d 743, 747 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003); Bell v. Lee, 49 S.W.3d 8, 10-11 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001); Gaither v. Davis, 582 S.W.2d 913, 913 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Martin, 335 S.W.3d at 875 -76 (quoting Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 488-89 (Tex.Crim.App.2011)). 2013See Martin, 335 S.W.3d at 875–76 (quoting Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 , 488–89 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Katerndahl v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green1 sentence1998Co., 961 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, n.w.h.); Farmers Texas County Mut. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ford Motor Co. v. Maddox Motor Co.
neutral
1 sentence1968Appellant had notice by the contract of appellee’s unqualified claim of right to cancel the contract by giving notice of its intention to cancel.” We note that in Wood Motor Co. v. Nebel, supra, as well as Maddox Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 23 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Com.App.1930, [on subsequent appeal, Ford Motor Co. v. Maddox, 123 Tex. 608 , 73 S.W.2d 517 (1934)], cited therein, the causes of action were for damages for breach of contract, and that in both cases the court says that the option to terminate will be enforced “if not contrary to equity and good conscience.” Under the facts of this case | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Maddox Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1968Appellant had notice by the contract of appellee’s unqualified claim of right to cancel the contract by giving notice of its intention to cancel.” We note that in Wood Motor Co. v. Nebel, supra, as well as Maddox Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 23 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Com.App.1930, [on subsequent appeal, Ford Motor Co. v. Maddox, 123 Tex. 608 , 73 S.W.2d 517 (1934)], cited therein, the causes of action were for damages for breach of contract, and that in both cases the court says that the option to terminate will be enforced “if not contrary to equity and good conscience.” Under the facts of this case | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Maddox Motor Co.
neutral
1 sentence1968Appellant had notice by the contract of appellee’s unqualified claim of right to cancel the contract by giving notice of its intention to cancel.” We note that in Wood Motor Co. v. Nebel, supra, as well as Maddox Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 23 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Com.App.1930, [on subsequent appeal, Ford Motor Co. v. Maddox, 123 Tex. 608 , 73 S.W.2d 517 (1934)], cited therein, the causes of action were for damages for breach of contract, and that in both cases the court says that the option to terminate will be enforced “if not contrary to equity and good conscience.” Under the facts of this case | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Louisiana Gas & Fuel Co. v. White Bros.
neutral
2 sentences1948Louisiana Gas & Fuel Co. v. White Bros., 157 La. 728 , 103 So. 23 ; McCoy v. Arkansas Natural Gas. 1948Louisiana Gas & Fuel Co. v. White Bros., 157 La. 728 , 103 So. 23 ; McCoy v. Arkansas Natural Gas. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Velie Motor Car Co. v. Kopmeier Motor Car Co.
neutral
1 sentence1938In Velie Motor Car Co. v. Kopmeier Motor Co., 7 Cir., 194 F. 324 , the seller sued the dealer for breach of contract to buy automobiles which the seller tendered to the dealer at the stipulated prices. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.
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.