Anderson claim in Texas

2011Anderson’s claim that she was defamed by the information on the union’s website is not included within the list of “unfair labor practices” set forth in section 7116(b) because “[n]othing in the CSRA pertains to this specific scenario.” Gutiemz, 543 F.3d at 255 .

2011Anderson's claim that she was defamed by the information on the union's website is not included within the list of "unfair labor practices" set forth in section 7116(b) because "[n]othing in the CSRA pertains to this specific scenario." Gutierrez, 543 F.3d at 255 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson’s claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson's claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson’s claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson's claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson's claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson's claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson's claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2011The union relies on Bush, Fausto, Saul, and Rollins , in support of its argument that Anderson's claims are preempted. 462 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 484 U.S. at 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 928 F.2d at 843 , 937 F.2d at 138 .

2019Anderson The issue in Anderson was whether North Carolina’s indecent liberties statute was substantially similar to indecency with a child. 394 S.W.3d at 533 .

2019Anderson The issue in Anderson was whether North Carolina's indecent liberties statute was substantially similar to indecency with a child. 394 S.W.3d at 533 .

2019The first prong of the Prudholm/Anderson test “required ‘that the elements being compared . . . must display a high degree of likeness, but may be less than identical.’” Fisk, 574 S.W.3d at 920 (quoting Prudholm, 333 S.W.3d at 594 ).

2019We recently *533 abandoned the second prong of the Prudholm / Anderson test in Fisk v. State , 574 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. Crim.

2015See id.; De Ayala, 193 S.W.3d at 578 .

2011See id.; De Ayala, 193 S.W.3d at 578 .

2025However, we went on to private suits for money damages.” Alden v. Maine, 527 hold that the Anderson rule did not apply in Humble Oil U.S. 706, 750, 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). because (1) its application would abolish the rule that taxes However, if the governmental entity interjects itself into or due the State cannot be offset, and (2) the defendant's claim chooses to engage in litigation to assert affirmative claims was not connected with the State's claim as the two involved for monetary damages, the entity will presumably have made a decision to expend resources to pay litiga

2025However, we went on to private suits for money damages.” Alden v. Maine, 527 hold that the Anderson rule did not apply in Humble Oil U.S. 706, 750, 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). because (1) its application would abolish the rule that taxes However, if the governmental entity interjects itself into or due the State cannot be offset, and (2) the defendant's claim chooses to engage in litigation to assert affirmative claims was not connected with the State's claim as the two involved for monetary damages, the entity will presumably have made a decision to expend resources to pay litiga

2019The first prong of the Prudholm/Anderson test “required ‘that the elements being compared . . . must display a high degree of likeness, but may be less than identical.’” Fisk, 574 S.W.3d at 920 (quoting Prudholm, 333 S.W.3d at 594 ).

2019“The second prong required ‘that the elements must be substantially similar with respect to the individual or public interests protected and the impact of the elements on the seriousness of the offenses.’” Id. (quoting Prudholm, 333 S.W.3d at 595 ).

2019Under Kamel’s reasoning, immunity was waived by neither. 53 See supra note __. 54 333 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). 55 Id. at 679 . 56 Id. 57 Id. 58 Id. at 680 . 59 Ante at ___. 16 Similarly, in University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler v. Smith, the court of appeals rejected a claim that a bile leak following gallbladder surgery was caused by the use of the electrocautery instrument used in the surgery.60 As in this case, there was no evidence or even a claim that the use of the instrument was itself negligent.61 The court concluded that the plaintiff’

2019Under Kamel’s reasoning, immunity was waived by neither. 53 See supra note __. 54 333 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). 55 Id. at 679 . 56 Id. 57 Id. 58 Id. at 680 . 59 Ante at ___. 16 Similarly, in University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler v. Smith, the court of appeals rejected a claim that a bile leak following gallbladder surgery was caused by the use of the electrocautery instrument used in the surgery.60 As in this case, there was no evidence or even a claim that the use of the instrument was itself negligent.61 The court concluded that the plaintiff’

2018Gallagher & Co. v. Dieterich , 270 S.W.3d 695 , 706 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (rejecting argument that party seeking attorney's fees "did not offer any evidence of the Anderson factors").

2018Gallagher & Co. v. Dieterich , 270 S.W.3d 695 , 706 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (rejecting argument that party seeking attorney's fees "did not offer any evidence of the Anderson factors").

2018See, e.g., Tex. Commerce Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515 , 517–18 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam); Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. City of Dripping Springs, 304 S.W.3d 871 , 892–93 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. denied).

2018See, e.g., Tex. Commerce Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515 , 517–18 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam); Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. City of Dripping Springs, 304 S.W.3d 871 , 892–93 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. denied).