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 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 |
|---|---|---|
J.M.K. 6, Inc v. Gregg & Gregg, P.C.green2 sentences2010In J.M.K. 6 , the Fourteenth Court of Appeals concluded that third-party actions are not contemplated by the terms "counterclaim or cross claim" contained in section 16.069 of the civil practice and remedies code and that "the purpose of section 16.069 would not be served by rewriting it to allow a defendant to revive an expired claim against a non-party." Id. at 200-02 ; see Tex. Civ. 2010In J.M.K. 6, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals concluded that third-party actions are not contemplated by the terms “counterclaim or cross claim” contained in section 16.069 of the civil practice and remedies code and that “the purpose of section 16.069 would not be served by rewriting it to allow a defendant to revive an expired claim against a non-party.” Id. at 200-02 ; see Tex. Civ. | 3 | 6 |
Cathey v. Weavergreen2 sentences1995See Tex. Const. Ann. art. 1, § 16 (Vernon 1984) (prohibiting retroactive laws); Cathey v. Weaver, 111 Tex. 515 , 242 S.W. 447, 451-52 (Tex.1922) (stating that a legislative enactment which revives an expired claim violates the state constitution); Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 , 95 n. 1, 102 S.Ct. 1549 ,1552 n. 1, 71 L.Ed.2d 770 , 775 n. 1 (1982) (stating the same in a case implicating Texas law); Brantley v. Phoenix Ins. 1995See Tex. Const. Ann. art. 1, § 16 (Vernon 1984) (prohibiting retroactive laws); Cathey v. Weaver, 111 Tex. 515 , 242 S.W. 447, 451-52 (Tex.1922) (stating that a legislative enactment which revives an expired claim violates the state constitution); Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 , 95 n. 1, 102 S.Ct. 1549 ,1552 n. 1, 71 L.Ed.2d 770 , 775 n. 1 (1982) (stating the same in a case implicating Texas law); Brantley v. Phoenix Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Brantley v. Phoenix Insurance Co.green1 sentence1995Co., 536 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1976, writ refd) (stating the same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kuciemba v. State
green
1 sentence2020Kuciemba, 310 S.W.3d at 462 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mills v. Habluetzel
green
2 sentences1995See Tex. Const. Ann. art. 1, § 16 (Vernon 1984) (prohibiting retroactive laws); Cathey v. Weaver, 111 Tex. 515 , 242 S.W. 447, 451-52 (Tex.1922) (stating that a legislative enactment which revives an expired claim violates the state constitution); Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 , 95 n. 1, 102 S.Ct. 1549 ,1552 n. 1, 71 L.Ed.2d 770 , 775 n. 1 (1982) (stating the same in a case implicating Texas law); Brantley v. Phoenix Ins. 1995See Tex. Const. Ann. art. 1, § 16 (Vernon 1984) (prohibiting retroactive laws); Cathey v. Weaver, 111 Tex. 515 , 242 S.W. 447, 451-52 (Tex.1922) (stating that a legislative enactment which revives an expired claim violates the state constitution); Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 , 95 n. 1, 102 S.Ct. 1549 ,1552 n. 1, 71 L.Ed.2d 770 , 775 n. 1 (1982) (stating the same in a case implicating Texas law); Brantley v. Phoenix Ins. | 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.