8 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
D Design Holdings, L.P. v. MMP Corp.green2 sentences2019See D Design Holdings, 339 S.W.3d at 204 (failure to object to lack of required evidentiary hearing waived claim for sanctions). 2011See D Design Holdings, L.P., 339 S.W.3d at 204 ; Dugas, 2004 WL 438598 , at *3. | 3 | 3 |
Alejandro v. Bellgreen2 sentences2008See Alejandro v. Bell, 84 S.W.3d 383, 392-93 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). 2008See Alejandro v. Bell, 84 S.W.3d 383, 392-93 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
Kaufmann v. Moralesgreen1 sentence2021See Ron v. Ron, 604 S.W.3d 559 , 577 & n.22 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (noting that a party “does not waive its complaint to an overly broad temporary injunction at the temporary injunction hearing” by not raising the argument in the trial court (quoting Kaufmann v. Morales, 93 S.W.3d 650 , 655 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.))). 6 to the injunction” could not complain on appeal about the lack of an evidentiary hearing for an anti-suit injunction. | 1 | 1 |
Alejandro v. Robstown Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2014Tetra Tech bore the burden of establishing its entitlement to sanctions under rule 13; that burden required Tetra Tech to come 5 No. 02-07-00327-CV, 2007 WL 3205185 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 30, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding that trial court abused its discretion by awarding sanctions under rule 13 because trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing); see also Alejandro, 131 S.W.3d at 669 (holding that trial court abused its discretion by assessing rule 13 sanctions because appellees presented evidence only on the amount of costs and attorneys’ fees at the sanction | 1 | 1 |
Texas-Ohio Gas, Inc. v. Mecomgreen1 sentence2008See Mecom, 28 S.W.3d at 139-40 (admissions and letter were not in the record at the time the trial court entered order so not properly considered to show bad faith and to support sanctions). [11] The majority's opinion is simply incorrect that "Robson did not raise the lack of an evidentiary hearing as a point of error on appeal." Robson's third issue on appeal directly raises the lack of evidence to support sanctions: "The trial court erred in granting Appellee's Motion for Sanctions on the ground that Appellee offered no evidence of bad faith or that the claim complained of was brought for t | 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.