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.
7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1878–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
First International Bank in San Antonio v. Roper Corp.green2 sentences2013See First Int’l Bank, 686 S.W.2d at 605 ; Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Lee, 880 S.W.2d 750, 757 (Tex.1993); Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 . 1997Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 ; see also First Int’l Bank v. Roper Corp., 686 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tex.1985); Lemos v. Montez, 680 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex.1984); Levermann v. Cartall, 393 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Leegreen1 sentence2013See First Int’l Bank, 686 S.W.2d at 605 ; Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Lee, 880 S.W.2d 750, 757 (Tex.1993); Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 . | 1 | 1 |
Lemos v. Montezgreen2 sentences1997First Int’l Bank, 686 S.W.2d at 605 ; Lemos, 680 S.W.2d at 800 ; Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 . 1997Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 ; see also First Int’l Bank v. Roper Corp., 686 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tex.1985); Lemos v. Montez, 680 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex.1984); Levermann v. Cartall, 393 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Acord v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2013See First Int’l Bank, 686 S.W.2d at 605 ; Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Lee, 880 S.W.2d 750, 757 (Tex.1993); Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 . 1997Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 ; see also First Int’l Bank v. Roper Corp., 686 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tex.1985); Lemos v. Montez, 680 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex.1984); Levermann v. Cartall, 393 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 2 | 1997–2013 |
HARDWARE DEALERS MUT. F. INS. CO. v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
green
2 sentences2009Exch., the Texas Supreme Court recognized that with regard to automobile insurance, three kinds of “other insurance” clauses have developed as devices to limit coverage or liability: (1) a pro rata clause, which restricts liability upon concurring insurers to an apportionment basis, (2) an excess clause, which restricts liability upon an insurer to excess coverage after another insurer has paid up to its policy limits, and (3) an escape clause, which avoids all liability if other insurance exists. 444 S.W.2d 583 , 586 (Tex.1969). 2009Exch., the Texas Supreme Court recognized that with regard to automobile insurance, three kinds of “other insurance” clauses have developed as devices to limit coverage or liability: (1) a pro rata clause, which restricts liability upon concurring insurers to an apportionment basis, (2) an excess clause, which restricts liability upon an insurer to excess coverage after another insurer has paid up to its policy limits, and (3) an escape clause, which -5- 04-09-00322-CV avoids all liability if other insurance exists. 444 S.W.2d 583 , 586 (Tex. 1969). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Great American Indemnity Co. v. McMenamin
neutral
2 sentences1968Great American Ind. Co. v. McMenamin, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 734 (wr. dism. correct judg.); Citizens Mutual Auto. 1966Great American Ind. Co. v. McMenamin, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 734 (wr. dism. correct judg.); Citizens Mutual Auto. | 2 | 1966–1968 |
Levermann v. Cartall
green
1 sentence1997Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 ; see also First Int’l Bank v. Roper Corp., 686 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tex.1985); Lemos v. Montez, 680 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex.1984); Levermann v. Cartall, 393 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Egery v. Power
neutral
1 sentence1878Dig. art. 3446.] Presiding Judge Ector cites and reviews the following cases in which the plea in reconvention was held good, viz.: Thomas v. Hill, 3 Tex. 270 ; Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501 ; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406 ; Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 ; and the cases of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Tex. 358 , and Pierson v. Kirsh, 46 Tex. 26 , where the pleas were held bad; and he evolves from these cases the rule that the matter pleaded in reconvention must have grown out of, or be in some way connected with or incidental to, the main action. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Walcott v. Hendrick
neutral
1 sentence1878Dig. art. 3446.] Presiding Judge Ector cites and reviews the following cases in which the plea in reconvention was held good, viz.: Thomas v. Hill, 3 Tex. 270 ; Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501 ; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406 ; Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 ; and the cases of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Tex. 358 , and Pierson v. Kirsh, 46 Tex. 26 , where the pleas were held bad; and he evolves from these cases the rule that the matter pleaded in reconvention must have grown out of, or be in some way connected with or incidental to, the main action. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Sterrett v. City of Houston
neutral
1 sentence1878Dig. art. 3446.] Presiding Judge Ector cites and reviews the following cases in which the plea in reconvention was held good, viz.: Thomas v. Hill, 3 Tex. 270 ; Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501 ; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406 ; Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 ; and the cases of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Tex. 358 , and Pierson v. Kirsh, 46 Tex. 26 , where the pleas were held bad; and he evolves from these cases the rule that the matter pleaded in reconvention must have grown out of, or be in some way connected with or incidental to, the main action. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Thomas v. Hill
green
1 sentence1878Dig. art. 3446.] Presiding Judge Ector cites and reviews the following cases in which the plea in reconvention was held good, viz.: Thomas v. Hill, 3 Tex. 270 ; Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501 ; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406 ; Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 ; and the cases of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Tex. 358 , and Pierson v. Kirsh, 46 Tex. 26 , where the pleas were held bad; and he evolves from these cases the rule that the matter pleaded in reconvention must have grown out of, or be in some way connected with or incidental to, the main action. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Carothers v. Thorp
neutral
1 sentence1878Dig. art. 3446.] Presiding Judge Ector cites and reviews the following cases in which the plea in reconvention was held good, viz.: Thomas v. Hill, 3 Tex. 270 ; Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501 ; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406 ; Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 ; and the cases of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Tex. 358 , and Pierson v. Kirsh, 46 Tex. 26 , where the pleas were held bad; and he evolves from these cases the rule that the matter pleaded in reconvention must have grown out of, or be in some way connected with or incidental to, the main action. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Pinson v. Kirsh
neutral
1 sentence1878Dig. art. 3446.] Presiding Judge Ector cites and reviews the following cases in which the plea in reconvention was held good, viz.: Thomas v. Hill, 3 Tex. 270 ; Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501 ; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406 ; Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153 ; and the cases of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Tex. 358 , and Pierson v. Kirsh, 46 Tex. 26 , where the pleas were held bad; and he evolves from these cases the rule that the matter pleaded in reconvention must have grown out of, or be in some way connected with or incidental to, the main action. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.