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 3 courts 1995–2020 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 Education Agency v. Leepergreen2 sentences2015The Court compounds its error by determining that the DJA implicitly authorizes the plaintiffs’ recovery of attorneys’ fees in this declaratory judgment suit. 893 S.W.2d at 445-46. 2015The Court compounds its error by determining that the DJA implicitly authorizes the plaintiffs’ recovery of attorneys’ fees in this declaratory judgment suit. 893 S.W.2d at 445-46. | 2 | 3 |
White v. Independence Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2020Bank, N.A., 794 S.W.2d 895, 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 1990, writ denied); see also In re El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., 132 A.3d 67, 120 (Del. Ch. 2015). 20 Because EMC Cement claimed an injury based on lost value of the partnership, we should dismiss its claim for lack of standing.97 As a limited partner, it lacked standing to recover the partnership’s lost profits.98 Because standing implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, the court of appeals erred in concluding that the defendant partners waived a challenge to this direct recovery.99 This Court compounds that error by disregardin | 1 | 1 |
In re El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigationgreen1 sentence2020Bank, N.A., 794 S.W.2d 895, 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 1990, writ denied); see also In re El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., 132 A.3d 67, 120 (Del. Ch. 2015). 20 Because EMC Cement claimed an injury based on lost value of the partnership, we should dismiss its claim for lack of standing.97 As a limited partner, it lacked standing to recover the partnership’s lost profits.98 Because standing implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, the court of appeals erred in concluding that the defendant partners waived a challenge to this direct recovery.99 This Court compounds that error by disregardin | 1 | 1 |
Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, Texasgreen1 sentence2017Cadena and 175 See Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427, 438 (Tex. 2016) (citing Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d at 452 ). 176 See BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 799 (Tex. 2002) (requiring evidence of parental control to “fuse” the parent and subsidiary for jurisdictional purposes). 177 See TEX. | 1 | 1 |
BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchandgreen1 sentence2017Cadena and 175 See Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427, 438 (Tex. 2016) (citing Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d at 452 ). 176 See BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 799 (Tex. 2002) (requiring evidence of parental control to “fuse” the parent and subsidiary for jurisdictional purposes). 177 See TEX. | 1 | 1 |
Seibert v. Seibertgreen1 sentence1998Where jurisdiction over the parties is established, Texas law does not allow a “divisible divorce.” See Tex. Fam.Code § 7.001 (formerly Tex. Fam.Code § 3.63(a))(“In a decree of divorce ... the court shall order a division of the estate of the parties ....”); see also Hollaway v. Hollaway, 792 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Seibert v. Seibert, 759 S.W.2d 768, 769-70 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1988, writ denied); Vautrain v. Vautrain, 646 S.W.2d 309, 314 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ dism’d). | 1 | 1 |
Hollaway v. Hollawaygreen1 sentence1998Where jurisdiction over the parties is established, Texas law does not allow a “divisible divorce.” See Tex. Fam.Code § 7.001 (formerly Tex. Fam.Code § 3.63(a))(“In a decree of divorce ... the court shall order a division of the estate of the parties ....”); see also Hollaway v. Hollaway, 792 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Seibert v. Seibert, 759 S.W.2d 768, 769-70 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1988, writ denied); Vautrain v. Vautrain, 646 S.W.2d 309, 314 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ dism’d). | 1 | 1 |
Vautrain v. Vautraingreen1 sentence1998Where jurisdiction over the parties is established, Texas law does not allow a “divisible divorce.” See Tex. Fam.Code § 7.001 (formerly Tex. Fam.Code § 3.63(a))(“In a decree of divorce ... the court shall order a division of the estate of the parties ....”); see also Hollaway v. Hollaway, 792 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Seibert v. Seibert, 759 S.W.2d 768, 769-70 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1988, writ denied); Vautrain v. Vautrain, 646 S.W.2d 309, 314 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ dism’d). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ruttiger
green
1 sentence2017Cadena and 175 See Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427, 438 (Tex. 2016) (citing Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d at 452 ). 176 See BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 799 (Tex. 2002) (requiring evidence of parental control to “fuse” the parent and subsidiary for jurisdictional purposes). 177 See TEX. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Spevack v. Klein
green
2 sentences2015Today's appli- HARLAN that the findings of the two cation of the privilege serves only to ham- courts below shouJd not be overturned. per appropriate protection of other fun- damental public values. 5 However that may be, with Garrity on the books, the Court compounds its error In view of these conclusions, I find it in Spevack v. Klein, No. 62, 385 U.S. 511 , unnecessary to reach the alternative basis 87 S.Ct. 625 , 17 L.Ed.2d 574 . 2015Today's appli- HARLAN that the findings of the two cation of the privilege serves only to ham- courts below shouJd not be overturned. per appropriate protection of other fun- damental public values. 5 However that may be, with Garrity on the books, the Court compounds its error In view of these conclusions, I find it in Spevack v. Klein, No. 62, 385 U.S. 511 , unnecessary to reach the alternative basis 87 S.Ct. 625 , 17 L.Ed.2d 574 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
BD CLICK CO. INC. v. Safari Drilling Corp.
green
1 sentence1998Click Co. v. Safari Drilling Corp., 638 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.1982). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Chatman v. State
green
2 sentences1995The fact of the matter is that the Court grossly misinterprets its own opinion in Chatman v. State, 846 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Cr. 1995The fact of the matter is that the Court grossly misinterprets its own opinion in Chatman v. State, 846 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.