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 2004–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Calvertgreen2 sentences2011For example, in Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Calvert , the Texas Supreme Court held that the sale-for-resale exemption applied to the transfer of items from a defense contractor to the federal government, even though the ultimate resale could never in fact be taxed in light of the tax code exemption for governmental entities. 519 S.W.2d 106, 110-11 (Tex. 1975); see also Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Systems , 101 S.W.3d 558, 570 (Tex. App.--Austin 2003, pet. denied) (applying Day & Zimmerman analysis to exemption claimed under tax code section 151.309 for items sold to governmental entities). 2011For example, in Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Calvert, the Texas Supreme Court held that the sale-for-resale exemption applied to the transfer of items from a defense contractor to the federal government, even though the ultimate resale could never in fact be taxed in light of the tax code exemption for governmental entities. 519 S.W.2d 106, 110-11 (Tex. 1975); see also Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Systems, 101 S.W.3d 558, 570 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied) (applying Day & Zimmerman analysis to exemption claimed under tax code section 151.309 for items sold to governmental entities). | 6 | 6 |
Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2011For example, in Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Calvert , the Texas Supreme Court held that the sale-for-resale exemption applied to the transfer of items from a defense contractor to the federal government, even though the ultimate resale could never in fact be taxed in light of the tax code exemption for governmental entities. 519 S.W.2d 106, 110-11 (Tex. 1975); see also Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Systems , 101 S.W.3d 558, 570 (Tex. App.--Austin 2003, pet. denied) (applying Day & Zimmerman analysis to exemption claimed under tax code section 151.309 for items sold to governmental entities). 2011For example, in Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Calvert, the Texas Supreme Court held that the sale-for-resale exemption applied to the transfer of items from a defense contractor to the federal government, even though the ultimate resale could never in fact be taxed in light of the tax code exemption for governmental entities. 519 S.W.2d 106, 110-11 (Tex. 1975); see also Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Systems, 101 S.W.3d 558, 570 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied) (applying Day & Zimmerman analysis to exemption claimed under tax code section 151.309 for items sold to governmental entities). | 6 | 6 |
Holden v. Weidenfellergreen1 sentence2018See Holden v. Weidenfeller, 929 S.W.2d 124, 129 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (burden of establishing elements of implied easement by necessity is on the party claiming the easement). | 1 | 1 |
Laykin v. McFallgreen2 sentences2004See Laykin v. McFall, 830 S.W.2d 266, 268-70 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1992, orig. proceeding). 2004See Laykin v. McFall, 830 S.W.2d 266, 268-70 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1992, orig. proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.