8 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation v. Auldgreen1 sentence2025See Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887, 896 (Tex. 2000); see also TEX. | 1 | 1 |
L'Art De La Mode, Inc. v. the Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.green1 sentence2023“A meritorious defense is one that, if true, would cause a different result on retrial, though it need not be a totally opposite result.” Take 5 LLC v. Smith, No. 05-22-00390-CV, 2023 WL 1229028 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing L’Arte De La Mode, Inc. v. Neiman Marcus Grp., 395 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)). 5 Setting up a meritorious defense requires the articulation of the facts supporting the defense because “conclusory statements are not sufficient to meet the second Craddock element.” Djomo v. Tchengwe, No. 01-20-00581-CV, 2022 WL 28 | 1 | 1 |
Whatley v. National Bank of Commercegreen1 sentence1991See Whatley v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 S.W.2d 500, 506 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1977, no writ) (limitations for rescission based on failure of consideration does not begin to run until failure of consideration occurs). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Butler v. State
green
2 sentences2003Butler , 716 S.W.2d at 54 . 2003Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 54 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
GMC v. Saenz on Behalf of Saenz
green
2 sentences1998Id. 1997Id. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. v. Lerma
green
1 sentence2023“A meritorious defense is one that, if true, would cause a different result on retrial, though it need not be a totally opposite result.” Take 5 LLC v. Smith, No. 05-22-00390-CV, 2023 WL 1229028 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing L’Arte De La Mode, Inc. v. Neiman Marcus Grp., 395 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)). 5 Setting up a meritorious defense requires the articulation of the facts supporting the defense because “conclusory statements are not sufficient to meet the second Craddock element.” Djomo v. Tchengwe, No. 01-20-00581-CV, 2022 WL 28 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ivy v. Carrell
green
1 sentence2023“A meritorious defense is one that, if true, would cause a different result on retrial, though it need not be a totally opposite result.” Take 5 LLC v. Smith, No. 05-22-00390-CV, 2023 WL 1229028 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing L’Arte De La Mode, Inc. v. Neiman Marcus Grp., 395 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)). 5 Setting up a meritorious defense requires the articulation of the facts supporting the defense because “conclusory statements are not sufficient to meet the second Craddock element.” Djomo v. Tchengwe, No. 01-20-00581-CV, 2022 WL 28 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Baylor Scott and White, Hillcrest Medical Center v. Ruthen James Weems Iii
green
1 sentence2021Baylor Scott & White, 575 S.W.3d at 363 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.