7 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1946–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.green2 sentences2015It is, in other words, a fact question that should have been put to the jury with appropriate instructions.”); Digges v. State, No. 05-10-00239-CR, 2012 WL 2444543 , at 5 (Tex. App.---Dallas June 28, 2012) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[W]hether an investment qualifies as a security is a mixed question of law and fact.”). 15 TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 450 (1976) (“The issue of materiality may be characterized as a mixed question of law and fact, involving as it does the application of a legal standard to a particular set of facts.”); U.S. v. Gaudin, 55 2015It is, in other words, a fact question that should have been put to the jury with appropriate instructions.”); Digges v. State, No. 05-10-00239-CR, 2012 WL 2444543 , at 5 (Tex. App.---Dallas June 28, 2012) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[W]hether an investment qualifies as a security is a mixed question of law and fact.”). 15 TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 450 (1976) (“The issue of materiality may be characterized as a mixed question of law and fact, involving as it does the application of a legal standard to a particular set of facts.”); U.S. v. Gaudin, 55 | 2 | 3 |
Padilla v. Kentuckygreen1 sentence2021But the record shows the habeas court found otherwise, as that court found Barahona’s attorney 42 See 8 U.S.C. 1254a(2)(B) (providing that “[a]n alien shall not be eligible for temporary protected status under this section if the Attorney General finds that . . . the alien has been convicted of any felony or 2 or more misdemeanors committed in the United States”); see also Padilla, 559 U.S. at 368 . 43 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(A)(iii) (providing the Attorney General shall not waive the requirement in subsection 1254a(2)(B)). 16 gave him reasonable professional assistance under the standard that ap | 1 | 1 |
Douglas F. White v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and Krupp Lonrho Gmbh Seeschiffartgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., White, 222 F.3d at 150 (Wilkinson, J.) (rejecting the Ruiz factors because “[a] nine- part probe provides insufficient guidance to prospective litigants about the application of a legal standard, as the Fifth Circuit itself has intimated”). 2020It did not do so, and it is not entitled to a remand. 4 See, e.g., White, 222 F.3d at 150 (Wilkinson, J.) (rejecting the Ruiz factors because “[a] nine-part probe provides insufficient guidance to prospective litigants about the application of a legal standard, as the Fifth Circuit itself has intimated”). 11 (4) Did the employee acquiesce in the new work situation? (5) Did the original employer terminate his relationship with the employee? (6) Who furnished tools and place for performance? (7) Was the new employment over a considerable length of time? (8) Who had the right to discharge the emp | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Hawkins v. State, 656 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (Failure to disclose a prior conviction for securities fraud and that money would be used for other purposes were omissions of material facts under article 581-29(C)(1) and 581— 4(F).); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S.Ct. 2822 , 100 L.Ed.2d 923 (Failure to disclose prior encumbrances on oil and gas properties and drilling equipment to investors was omission of a material fact under articles 581-29(C)(1) and 581-29(F).); Huett v. State, 672 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, rev. ref'd) (Mate | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paul v. Ruiz v. Shell Oil Company, National Tank Company
green
2 sentences2020Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 355 (citing Ruiz, 413 F.2d at 312–13). “[N]o one of these factors, or any combination of them, is decisive, and no fixed test is used to determine the existence of a borrowed-servant relationship.” Ruiz, 413 F.2d at 312 . 2020Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 355 (citing Ruiz, 413 F.2d at 312–13). “[N]o one of these factors, or any combination of them, is decisive, and no fixed test is used to determine the existence of a borrowed-servant relationship.” Ruiz, 413 F.2d at 312 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
cluster 349266
green
1 sentence2020Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 355 (citing Ruiz, 413 F.2d at 312–13). “[N]o one of these factors, or any combination of them, is decisive, and no fixed test is used to determine the existence of a borrowed-servant relationship.” Ruiz, 413 F.2d at 312 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ex Parte Tarlton
green
1 sentence2019Ex parte Tarlton, 105 S.W.3d at 297 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Morgan v. State
green
1 sentence1991See Hawkins v. State, 656 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (Failure to disclose a prior conviction for securities fraud and that money would be used for other purposes were omissions of material facts under article 581-29(C)(1) and 581— 4(F).); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S.Ct. 2822 , 100 L.Ed.2d 923 (Failure to disclose prior encumbrances on oil and gas properties and drilling equipment to investors was omission of a material fact under articles 581-29(C)(1) and 581-29(F).); Huett v. State, 672 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, rev. ref'd) (Mate | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Rose v. State
green
1 sentence1991See Hawkins v. State, 656 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (Failure to disclose a prior conviction for securities fraud and that money would be used for other purposes were omissions of material facts under article 581-29(C)(1) and 581— 4(F).); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S.Ct. 2822 , 100 L.Ed.2d 923 (Failure to disclose prior encumbrances on oil and gas properties and drilling equipment to investors was omission of a material fact under articles 581-29(C)(1) and 581-29(F).); Huett v. State, 672 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, rev. ref'd) (Mate | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Peat Marwick Main & Co. v. Tew
green
1 sentence1991See Hawkins v. State, 656 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (Failure to disclose a prior conviction for securities fraud and that money would be used for other purposes were omissions of material facts under article 581-29(C)(1) and 581— 4(F).); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S.Ct. 2822 , 100 L.Ed.2d 923 (Failure to disclose prior encumbrances on oil and gas properties and drilling equipment to investors was omission of a material fact under articles 581-29(C)(1) and 581-29(F).); Huett v. State, 672 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, rev. ref'd) (Mate | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Huett v. State
green
1 sentence1991See Hawkins v. State, 656 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (Failure to disclose a prior conviction for securities fraud and that money would be used for other purposes were omissions of material facts under article 581-29(C)(1) and 581— 4(F).); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S.Ct. 2822 , 100 L.Ed.2d 923 (Failure to disclose prior encumbrances on oil and gas properties and drilling equipment to investors was omission of a material fact under articles 581-29(C)(1) and 581-29(F).); Huett v. State, 672 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, rev. ref'd) (Mate | 1 | 1991–1991 |
New York State Department of Social Services v. Bowen
green
1 sentence1991See Hawkins v. State, 656 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (Failure to disclose a prior conviction for securities fraud and that money would be used for other purposes were omissions of material facts under article 581-29(C)(1) and 581— 4(F).); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S.Ct. 2822 , 100 L.Ed.2d 923 (Failure to disclose prior encumbrances on oil and gas properties and drilling equipment to investors was omission of a material fact under articles 581-29(C)(1) and 581-29(F).); Huett v. State, 672 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, rev. ref'd) (Mate | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Molins PLC v. Quigg
green
1 sentence1991See Hawkins v. State, 656 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (Failure to disclose a prior conviction for securities fraud and that money would be used for other purposes were omissions of material facts under article 581-29(C)(1) and 581— 4(F).); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) cert. denied 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S.Ct. 2822 , 100 L.Ed.2d 923 (Failure to disclose prior encumbrances on oil and gas properties and drilling equipment to investors was omission of a material fact under articles 581-29(C)(1) and 581-29(F).); Huett v. State, 672 S.W.2d 533 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, rev. ref'd) (Mate | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1946The applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis is stated in 14 Am.Jur. § 79, p. 293, thus: “to make an opinion a decision there must have been an application of the judicial mind to the precise question necessary to be determined * * Arid in the footnote to the text it is stated on authority of United States v. Miller, 208 U.S. 32 , 28 S.Ct. 199 , 52 L.Ed. 376 , and other cited cases, that “A decision is riot authority upon a question not raised and considered in the case, although it may be involved in the facts.” To the-same effect is the rule announced in 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 195, p. 33 1946The applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis is stated in 14 Am.Jur. § 79, p. 293, thus: “to make an opinion a decision there must have been an application of the judicial mind to the precise question necessary to be determined * * Arid in the footnote to the text it is stated on authority of United States v. Miller, 208 U.S. 32 , 28 S.Ct. 199 , 52 L.Ed. 376 , and other cited cases, that “A decision is riot authority upon a question not raised and considered in the case, although it may be involved in the facts.” To the-same effect is the rule announced in 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 195, p. 33 | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.