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.
8 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Varner v. Cardenasgreen2 sentences2018The supreme court has explained, “[i]n Chapa we reestablished the rule that attorney’s fees are recoverable only if necessary to recover on a contract or statutory claim allowing them, and eliminated the exception for fees incurred solely on separate but arguably intertwined claims.” Varner v. Cardenas, 218 S.W.3d 68, 69 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (citing Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 313 ). 2015Tony Gullo “reestablished the rule that attorney’s fees are recoverable only if necessary to recover on a contract or statutory claim allowing them.” Varner v. Cardenas, 218 S.W.3d 68, 69 (Tex. 2007). 1890.001/55701 50 The only time that segregation is not required is “when discrete legal services advance both a recoverable and unrecoverable claim that they are so intertwined that they need not be segregated.” Tony Gullo, 212 S.W.3d at 313-14 (emphasis added). | 4 | 7 |
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. and Brien Garcia v. Nury Chapagreen2 sentences2018The supreme court has explained, “[i]n Chapa we reestablished the rule that attorney’s fees are recoverable only if necessary to recover on a contract or statutory claim allowing them, and eliminated the exception for fees incurred solely on separate but arguably intertwined claims.” Varner v. Cardenas, 218 S.W.3d 68, 69 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (citing Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 313 ). 2015Tony Gullo “reestablished the rule that attorney’s fees are recoverable only if necessary to recover on a contract or statutory claim allowing them.” Varner v. Cardenas, 218 S.W.3d 68, 69 (Tex. 2007). 1890.001/55701 50 The only time that segregation is not required is “when discrete legal services advance both a recoverable and unrecoverable claim that they are so intertwined that they need not be segregated.” Tony Gullo, 212 S.W.3d at 313-14 (emphasis added). | 1 | 8 |
McKinley v. Drozdgreen1 sentence2015In Tony Gullo, the Texas Supreme Court cases cited by either party sheds light on the precise issue "reestablished [*31] the rule that attorney's fees are recoverable before us: whether the phrase "person who prevails in a suit only if necessary to recover on a contract or statutory claim under this chapter" requires the party seeking fees simply to allowing them, and eliminated the exception for fees incurred prevail on the TTLA claim or to prevail in the suit as a whole. solely on separate but arguably intertwined claims." Varner, See McKinley v. Drozd, 685 S.W.2d 7, 8-9 (Tex. 1985) (noting | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.