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 2 courts 1920–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abilene Regional Medical Center v. Allengreen1 sentence2018Allen, 387 S.W.3d at 923 (rejecting appellants’ contention that the expert’s “opinion on causation is insufficient because it conflicts with matters contained in other expert reports and the facts in the case” because “[t]he inquiry at the report stage focuses on whether the information within the four corners of the report meets the good faith requirement of the statute” and “[i]f the facts do not support a plaintiff’s claim, summary judgment procedures provide a remedy”). 16 Thus, in limiting our review to the allegations in the four corners of the Kindred Report, we hold that the report sat | 1 | 1 |
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsettgreen1 sentence2017Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Madden v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Madden, 242 S.W.3d at 509–10. 13 Having determined that the record does not contain a disputed issue of fact that is material to Kindred’s claim, we hold that the trial court did not err by denying Kindred’s request for an article 38.23 instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Heiselbetz v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Heiselbetz, 906 S.W.2d at 512 . | 1 | 1 |
Watkins v. Southcrest Baptist Churchgreen1 sentence1969See in this connection the comments of several members of the Supreme Court in Watkins v. Southcrest Baptist Church, 399 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Sup., 1966), dealing with the kindred doctrine of charitable immunity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Koy v. Schneider
green
1 sentence1940In Koy v. Schneider, 110 Tex. 369 , 218 S.W. 479 , 221 S.W. 880, 885 , it was said: “A kindred rule is that,'where a statute is am-, biguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government' will be followed and upheld by the courts, unless such construction is clearly erroneous.” It is our conclusion that the judgment of the lower court, denying appellant a recovery for the taxes paid under the - taxing statute in issue, should be affirmed, ánd it is accordingly so ordered. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Koy v. Schneider
green
2 sentences1940In Koy v. Schneider, 110 Tex. 369 , 218 S.W. 479 , 221 S.W. 880, 885 , it was said: “A kindred rule is that,'where a statute is am-, biguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government' will be followed and upheld by the courts, unless such construction is clearly erroneous.” It is our conclusion that the judgment of the lower court, denying appellant a recovery for the taxes paid under the - taxing statute in issue, should be affirmed, ánd it is accordingly so ordered. 1940In Koy v. Schneider, 110 Tex. 369 , 218 S.W. 479 , 221 S.W. 880, 885 , it was said: “A kindred rule is that,'where a statute is am-, biguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government' will be followed and upheld by the courts, unless such construction is clearly erroneous.” It is our conclusion that the judgment of the lower court, denying appellant a recovery for the taxes paid under the - taxing statute in issue, should be affirmed, ánd it is accordingly so ordered. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Stuart v. Laird
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Pike v. Megoun
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Cohens v. Virginia
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Ogden v. Saunders
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Minor v. Happersett
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
State ex rel. Hudd v. Timme
green
1 sentence1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
State ex rel. Ash v. Parkinson
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Smith v. McGaughey
neutral
2 sentences1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . 1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Houston & Texas Central Railway Co. v. State
neutral
2 sentences1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . 1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
McGee and Bridges v. Corbin
green
2 sentences1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . 1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
People ex rel. Lynch v. Board of Supervisors
neutral
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Hancock v. McKinney
green
1 sentence1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Johnston v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Weaver v. Templin
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Board of Commissioners v. Bunting
green
1 sentence1920Board, etc., v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 143 ; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298, 301 ; Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 290 ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15 ; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491 ; People v. Board, etc., 100 Ill. 495 ; State v. French, 2 Pinney (Wis.) 181.” A kindred rule is that, where a statute is ambiguous — open to construction — a construction given it by even the head of an executive department of the state government will be followed and upheld by the c | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Tolleson v. Rogan, Commissioner
green
2 sentences1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . 1920Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. 384 ; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722 ; Dean v. State, 54 Tex. 315 ; Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1073 ; Railway v. State, 95 Tex. 507 , 68 S. W. 777 ; McGee v. Corbin; 96 Tex. 35 , 70 S. W. 79 ; Tolleson v. Rogan, 96 Tex. 424 , 73 S. W. 520 ; State v. Timme, 54 Wis. 340 , 11 N. W. 785 . | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.