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 1999–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eland Energy, Inc. v. Rowden Oil & Gas, Inc.green2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 3 | 5 |
Jackson v. Thweattgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Jackson v. Thweatt, 883 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Tex.1994) (holding that limitations provision of section 1821(d)(14) of FIRREA is applicable to suit on note brought by FDIC’s assignee, preempts state four-year limitations period, and extends limitation period to six years). 2004See , e.g., Jackson v. Thweatt , 883 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Tex. 1994) (holding that limitations provision of section 1821(d)(14) of FIRREA is applicable to suit on note brought by FDIC's assignee, preempts state four-year limitations period, and extends limitation period to six years). | 2 | 2 |
Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Koelzgreen1 sentence1999Co. v. Miller County Bd. of Educ., 821 F.Supp. 697, 698, 702 (M.D.Ga.1993) (finding no violation of a non-assignment clause in a construction contract where an original party to the contract merged with another corporation); Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., 130 Ariz. 585 , 637 P.2d 1088, 1089, 1092 (1981) (finding a non-assignability clause in a printing contract did not, as a matter of law, bar a claim on an open account brought by the surviving corporation of one of the original parties to the contract); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335 , 182 P.2d 182, 184, 190 (1947) ( | 1 | 1 |
Winchester Construction Co. v. Miller County Board of Educationgreen1 sentence1999Co. v. Miller County Bd. of Educ., 821 F.Supp. 697, 698, 702 (M.D.Ga.1993) (finding no violation of a non-assignment clause in a construction contract where an original party to the contract merged with another corporation); Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., 130 Ariz. 585 , 637 P.2d 1088, 1089, 1092 (1981) (finding a non-assignability clause in a printing contract did not, as a matter of law, bar a claim on an open account brought by the surviving corporation of one of the original parties to the contract); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335 , 182 P.2d 182, 184, 190 (1947) ( | 1 | 1 |
Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.green2 sentences1999Co. v. Miller County Bd. of Educ., 821 F.Supp. 697, 698, 702 (M.D.Ga.1993) (finding no violation of a non-assignment clause in a construction contract where an original party to the contract merged with another corporation); Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., 130 Ariz. 585 , 637 P.2d 1088, 1089, 1092 (1981) (finding a non-assignability clause in a printing contract did not, as a matter of law, bar a claim on an open account brought by the surviving corporation of one of the original parties to the contract); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335 , 182 P.2d 182, 184, 190 (1947) ( 1999Co. v. Miller County Bd. of Educ., 821 F.Supp. 697, 698, 702 (M.D.Ga.1993) (finding no violation of a non-assignment clause in a construction contract where an original party to the contract merged with another corporation); Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., 130 Ariz. 585 , 637 P.2d 1088, 1089, 1092 (1981) (finding a non-assignability clause in a printing contract did not, as a matter of law, bar a claim on an open account brought by the surviving corporation of one of the original parties to the contract); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335 , 182 P.2d 182, 184, 190 (1947) ( | 1 | 1 |
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.green2 sentences1999Co. v. Miller County Bd. of Educ., 821 F.Supp. 697, 698, 702 (M.D.Ga.1993) (finding no violation of a non-assignment clause in a construction contract where an original party to the contract merged with another corporation); Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., 130 Ariz. 585 , 637 P.2d 1088, 1089, 1092 (1981) (finding a non-assignability clause in a printing contract did not, as a matter of law, bar a claim on an open account brought by the surviving corporation of one of the original parties to the contract); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335 , 182 P.2d 182, 184, 190 (1947) ( 1999Co. v. Miller County Bd. of Educ., 821 F.Supp. 697, 698, 702 (M.D.Ga.1993) (finding no violation of a non-assignment clause in a construction contract where an original party to the contract merged with another corporation); Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., 130 Ariz. 585 , 637 P.2d 1088, 1089, 1092 (1981) (finding a non-assignability clause in a printing contract did not, as a matter of law, bar a claim on an open account brought by the surviving corporation of one of the original parties to the contract); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335 , 182 P.2d 182, 184, 190 (1947) ( | 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.