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 1 courts 1987–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Honeycutt v. Billingsleygreen2 sentences2003KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex.1996); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley, 992 S.W.2d 570, 577 (Tex.App.-Houston 1999, pet. denied) (“Novation is an affirmative defense”). 2003KPMG Peat Marwick , 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex. 1996); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley , 992 S.W.2d 570, 577 (Tex. App.--Houston 1999, pet. denied) ("Novation is an affirmative defense."). | 3 | 3 |
Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hoodgreen2 sentences2003KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex.1996); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley, 992 S.W.2d 570, 577 (Tex.App.-Houston 1999, pet. denied) (“Novation is an affirmative defense”). 2003KPMG Peat Marwick , 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex. 1996); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley , 992 S.W.2d 570, 577 (Tex. App.--Houston 1999, pet. denied) ("Novation is an affirmative defense."). | 3 | 3 |
Chau v. Riddlegreen1 sentence2016See Chau, 254 S.W.3d at 455 ; Villanueva, 123 S.W.3d at 464 . | 1 | 1 |
Cadle Co. v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2005Cadle Co. v. Henderson , 982 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
University of Houston v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2004Univ. of Houston v. Clark , 38 S.W.3d 578, 580 (Tex. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Kennedygreen1 sentence1987Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp.
green
2 sentences2003KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex.1996); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley, 992 S.W.2d 570, 577 (Tex.App.-Houston 1999, pet. denied) (“Novation is an affirmative defense”). 2003KPMG Peat Marwick , 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex. 1996); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley , 992 S.W.2d 570, 577 (Tex. App.--Houston 1999, pet. denied) ("Novation is an affirmative defense."). | 3 | 2003–2003 |
Villanueva v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence2016See Chau, 254 S.W.3d at 455 ; Villanueva, 123 S.W.3d at 464 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Shah v. Moss
green
1 sentence2004Shah, 67 S.W.3d at 842 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.