execution waiver (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

execution waiver in Texas

7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2014 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Rhamey v. Fieldergreen
texapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014See Rhamey, 203 S.W.3d at 27 .

11
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen
tex · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009See Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 134 .

11
In Re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc.green
tex · 2005 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Id. at 206 ; In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus proceeding staying execution authorized by interlocutory default judgment).

11
American Hydrocarbon Corporation v. Hickmangreen
texapp · 1965 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977A denial of the genuineness of the in-dorsement or assignment of a written instrument upon which suit is brought by an indorsee or assignee and in the absence of such a sworn plea, the indorsement or assignment thereof shall be held as fully proved . . . [Emphasis added] Appellee Cobb cites American Hydrocarbon Corp. v. Hickman, 393 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1965, no writ) and Blankenship v. Citizens State Bank, 457 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1970, writ ref’d n. r. e.) to support the argument that attachment of the assignment was unnecessary.

1977Appellee Cobb cites American Hydrocarbon Corp. v. Hickman, 393 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1965, no writ) and Blankenship v. Citizens State Bank, 457 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1970, writ ref'd n. r. e.) to support the argument that attachment of the assignment was unnecessary.

11
VanHuss v. Buchanangreen
texapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
1 sentence

1977American Fiber Glass, Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corporation, 529 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1975, writ ref’d n. r. e.) (Failure to file sworn plea waives challenge to execution of note, and only remaining requirement is to introduce note into evidence to pr ve its terms); VanHuss v. Buchanan, 508 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1974, writ dism’d) (Execution challenge waived by failure to file sworn denial; introduction of instrument only remaining requirement).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Faretta v. California green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

2014Waiver of Right to Counsel In his second issue, Thompson complains that his waiver of right to counsel was invalid because the trial court did not properly admonish him prior to the execution of his waiver pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 , 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2534 , 45 L.

2014Waiver of Right to Counsel In his second issue, Thompson complains that his waiver of right to counsel was invalid because the trial court did not properly admonish him prior to the execution of his waiver pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 , 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2534 , 45 L.

12014–2014
In Re Bank of America, N.A. green
tex · 2009
1 sentence

2012Bank of Am., 278 S.W.3d at 345 .

12012–2012
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. red
tex · 2001
1 sentence

2006Id. at 206 ; In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus proceeding staying execution authorized by interlocutory default judgment).

12006–2006
Flowers v. State green
texapp · 1985
2 sentences

1999The Flowers court concluded by saying, "Since it is not before us, we do not intend by this holding to indicate that it is not necessary to accomplish both the execution of the waiver and the filing of the information prior to the acceptance of a plea by the Court." See id.

1999The Flowers court concluded by saying, “Since it is not before us, we do not intend by this holding to indicate that it is not necessary to accomplish both the execution of the waiver and the filing of the information prior to the acceptance of a plea by the Court.” See id.

11999–1999
Blankenship v. Citizens State Bank, Slaton green
texapp · 1970
2 sentences

1977A denial of the genuineness of the in-dorsement or assignment of a written instrument upon which suit is brought by an indorsee or assignee and in the absence of such a sworn plea, the indorsement or assignment thereof shall be held as fully proved . . . [Emphasis added] Appellee Cobb cites American Hydrocarbon Corp. v. Hickman, 393 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1965, no writ) and Blankenship v. Citizens State Bank, 457 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1970, writ ref’d n. r. e.) to support the argument that attachment of the assignment was unnecessary.

1977Appellee Cobb cites American Hydrocarbon Corp. v. Hickman, 393 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1965, no writ) and Blankenship v. Citizens State Bank, 457 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1970, writ ref'd n. r. e.) to support the argument that attachment of the assignment was unnecessary.

11977–1977
American Fiber Glass, Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corp. green
texapp · 1975
1 sentence

1977American Fiber Glass, Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corporation, 529 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1975, writ ref’d n. r. e.) (Failure to file sworn plea waives challenge to execution of note, and only remaining requirement is to introduce note into evidence to pr ve its terms); VanHuss v. Buchanan, 508 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1974, writ dism’d) (Execution challenge waived by failure to file sworn denial; introduction of instrument only remaining requirement).

11977–1977

Where else courts name it

MA 86 (1982–2026) OH 46 (1978–2025) NY 20 (1892–2025) GA 18 (1912–2025) CA 10 (1945–2024) LA 9 (1916–2018) FL 9 (1980–2026) PA 9 (1842–2025) NJ 7 (1979–2021) TX 7 (1977–2014) IN 7 (1892–2008) IL 5 (1977–2026) WV 4 (1897–2026) AL 4 (1895–2010) TN 4 (1958–2007) MI 4 (1976–2008) AR 3 (2005–2010) MO 3 (1911–2008) CT 3 (1937–2023) NC 2 (1934–1958) WI 2 (1970–2026) CO 2 (1995–2025) MS 2 (1989–2023) ND 2 (1908–1999) KY 2 (1876–2014) VT 2 (2014–2018) NE 2 (1896–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check