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 1978–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Janes v. CPR CORP.green2 sentences2009See Janes v. CPR Corp. , 623 S.W.2d 733, 740 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ) ("A broker is a fiduciary required to exercise fidelity in good faith toward his principal in all matters within the scope of his employment. . . . 2009See Janes v. CPR Corp., 623 S.W.2d 733, 740 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Disk] 1981, no writ) (“A broker is a fiduciary required to exercise fidelity in good faith toward his principal in all matters within the scope of his employment.... | 4 | 4 |
Geuder v. Stategreen1 sentence2024To preserve error for appellate review, the record must show that: “1) the complaining party made a timely and specific request, objection, or motion; and 2) the trial judge either ruled on the request, objection, or motion (expressly or implicitly), or he refused to rule and the complaining party objected to that refusal.” Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wheat v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020See 486 U.S. 153 , 108 S. Ct. 1692 (1988). 2020See 486 U.S. 153 , 108 S. Ct. 1692 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Cape Oil Company v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1978Cape Oil Company v. Williams, 427 S.W.2d 122, 125 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1968, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. State
green
1 sentence2020Love’s brief never specifically cites Disciplinary Rule 1.06, but Love does repeatedly refer to a “conflict of interest” between himself and Retained Counsel; following are some of the examples: 21 • “Though this Court has adopted Gonzalez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.