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 2006–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re ExxonMobil Corp.green2 sentences2006See In re ExxonMobil, 153 S.W.3d at 613 . 2006See In re ExxonMobil, 153 S.W.3d at 613 . | 3 | 3 |
First Bank of Deer Park v. Harris Countygreen2 sentences2011See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.09 (a)(2); Cameron Appraisal Dist., 194 S.W.3d at 502 ; see also First Bank of Deer Park, 804 S.W.2d at 592 (stating that taxpayer did not preserve right to challenge ownership of stock because protest of ownership under Tax Code section 41.41 was not timely filed). 2011See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.09(a)(2); Cameron Appraisal Dist. , 194 S.W.3d at 502 ; see also First Bank of Deer Park , 804 S.W.2d at 592 (stating that taxpayer did not preserve right to challenge ownership of stock because protest of ownership under Tax Code section 41.41 was not timely filed). | 2 | 2 |
Cameron Appraisal District v. Rourkgreen2 sentences2015See Tex. Tax 9 Code Ann. § 42.09; Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d 501, 501 (Tex. 2006) (concluding taxpayer’s failure to operate within administrative framework “deprives the courts of jurisdiction to decide most matters relating to ad valorem taxes.”) (citing Matagorda Cnty. 2011See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.09 (a)(2); Cameron Appraisal Dist., 194 S.W.3d at 502 ; see also First Bank of Deer Park, 804 S.W.2d at 592 (stating that taxpayer did not preserve right to challenge ownership of stock because protest of ownership under Tax Code section 41.41 was not timely filed). | 1 | 3 |
Frank's International, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.green1 sentence2018See Frank’s Int’l, Inc. v. Smith Int’l, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 557 , 559 n.2. | 1 | 1 |
Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp.green1 sentence2016See Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp., 867 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.1993) (“[A] summary judgment cannot be affirmed on grounds not expressly set out in the motion or response.”). | 1 | 1 |
Harris County Appraisal District v. Dincansgreen1 sentence2016Laws 2820 , 2820 (amended 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2015) (unless the Code requires another method or the parties otherwise agree, all required notices may be delivered via first-class mail) (amended 2011) (current version at Tex, Tax Code Ann. § 1.07(a)); 27 Dincans, 882 S.W.2d at 78 (explaining that the presumption of delivery “will disappear if the taxpayer presents evidence that he in fact never received the notice”). 28 Because the evidence rebuts the presumption of compliance with all statutory duties, and this was the only ground on which the Taxing Units sought summary judgment, the trial | 1 | 1 |
Ned B. Morris III v. Houston Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2015See Morris v. Houston Independent School Dist., 388 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (holding that Section 42.09 established a detailed set of exclusive procedures which property owners must exhaust before raising grounds of protest in defense of the suit to collect delinquent taxes); Thames Shipyard & Repair Co. v. Galveston Central Appraisal Dist., No. 14-11-00691-CV, 2011 WL 5042836 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 25, 2013, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding that, even though notice did not allow taxpayer thirty days to protest under Section 41.44, taxpayer was r | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Public, Inc. v. County of Galveston
green
1 sentence2015See Morris v. Houston Independent School Dist., 388 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (holding that Section 42.09 established a detailed set of exclusive procedures which property owners must exhaust before raising grounds of protest in defense of the suit to collect delinquent taxes); Thames Shipyard & Repair Co. v. Galveston Central Appraisal Dist., No. 14-11-00691-CV, 2011 WL 5042836 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 25, 2013, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding that, even though notice did not allow taxpayer thirty days to protest under Section 41.44, taxpayer was r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.