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 2001–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Village of Creedmoor v. Frost National Bankgreen2 sentences2008See Village of Creedmoor, 808 S.W.2d at 618 (stating that “[t]he principle of first-in-time priority is still important in municipal law,” but applying controlling statute — local government code section 42.041 — to resolve appeal); cf. City of Arlington, 451 S.W.2d at 291-92 (applying first-in-time rule to determine which of two ordinances should control when both were initially invalid but later made valid by legislative validating acts). 2008See Village of Creedmoor , 808 S.W.2d at 618 (stating that “[t]he principle of first-in-time priority is still important in municipal law,” but applying controlling statute—local government code section 42.041—to resolve appeal); cf . | 6 | 6 |
City of San Antonio v. City of Boernegreen2 sentences2003City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne , 61 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. granted) (op. on reh’g); Village of Creedmore , 808 S.W.2d at 618 (acknowledging that statutory framework for ETJ factors into the determination of jurisdiction rather than priority in time, alone). 2003City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne , 61 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2001, pet. granted) (op. on reh'g); Village of Creedmore , 808 S.W.2d at 618 (acknowledging that statutory framework for ETJ factors into the determination of jurisdiction rather than priority in time, alone). | 3 | 3 |
City of Longview v. State Ex Rel. Spring Hill Utility Districtgreen2 sentences2008See City of Longview, 657 S.W.2d at 431 n. 2. 2008See City of Longview , 657 S.W.2d at 431 n.2. | 2 | 2 |
Diversified, Inc. v. Hallgreen1 sentence2018Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (“The holder of a later title will have priority over the holder of the earlier title once it is shown that the holder of the later title acquired it as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier interest.”). | 1 | 1 |
City of Arlington v. City of Grand Prairiegreen1 sentence2008See Village of Creedmoor, 808 S.W.2d at 618 (stating that “[t]he principle of first-in-time priority is still important in municipal law,” but applying controlling statute — local government code section 42.041 — to resolve appeal); cf. City of Arlington, 451 S.W.2d at 291-92 (applying first-in-time rule to determine which of two ordinances should control when both were initially invalid but later made valid by legislative validating acts). | 1 | 1 |
City of San Antonio v. City of Boernegreen1 sentence2008The result, as noted by one commentator, was that “cities were quick to engage in annexation wars and to stake [their] claim[s].” Boerne , 111 S.W.3d at 27 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fuller Springs v. State Ex Rel. City of Lufkin
green
1 sentence2008App.—Beaumont 1973) (holding that passage of annexation ordinance on first reading—rather than final passage—operated to extend ETJ so as to assert authority over territory in question), rev’d on other grounds , 513 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1974). 8: Granbury contends that because the supreme court has approved the immediately sequential annexation process that it used here, the first-in-time rule should operate to “save” the entire area proposed to be annexed according to that process. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Universal City v. City of Selma
green
2 sentences2001Id. 2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.