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 1975–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Capital Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2024Bank, N.A., 703 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (the notice of hearing must be given at least twenty-one days before the date the hearing is to be held); see also Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Tex. 1994) (a party’s right under Rule 166a(c) is to have the minimum notice of the hearing). 2023Bank, N.A., 703 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (the notice of hearing must be given at least twenty-one days before the date the hearing is to be held). | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. Blakegreen2 sentences2024Bank, N.A., 703 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (the notice of hearing must be given at least twenty-one days before the date the hearing is to be held); see also Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Tex. 1994) (a party’s right under Rule 166a(c) is to have the minimum notice of the hearing). 2023Gonzales v. Williams, No. 11-17-00130-CV, 2019 WL 2710046 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Eastland June 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Winn v. Martin Homebuilders, 10 Inc., 153 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, pet. denied)); Chadderdon v. Blaschke, 988 S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.)); see also Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Tex. 1994) (a party’s right under Rule 166a(c) is to have the minimum notice of the hearing); Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ) (referring to a twenty-one-day requirement to be f | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Petersongreen2 sentences1975E. g., Ex parte Peterson, 444 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex.1969); Ex parte Hart, 520 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1975). 1975E. g., Ex parte Peterson, 444 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex.1969). | 2 | 2 |
Birdwell v. Texins Credit Uniongreen1 sentence2023Gonzales v. Williams, No. 11-17-00130-CV, 2019 WL 2710046 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Eastland June 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Winn v. Martin Homebuilders, 10 Inc., 153 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, pet. denied)); Chadderdon v. Blaschke, 988 S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.)); see also Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Tex. 1994) (a party’s right under Rule 166a(c) is to have the minimum notice of the hearing); Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ) (referring to a twenty-one-day requirement to be f | 1 | 1 |
Winn v. Martin Homebuilders, Inc.green1 sentence2023Gonzales v. Williams, No. 11-17-00130-CV, 2019 WL 2710046 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Eastland June 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Winn v. Martin Homebuilders, 10 Inc., 153 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, pet. denied)); Chadderdon v. Blaschke, 988 S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.)); see also Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Tex. 1994) (a party’s right under Rule 166a(c) is to have the minimum notice of the hearing); Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ) (referring to a twenty-one-day requirement to be f | 1 | 1 |
Chadderdon v. Blaschkegreen1 sentence2023Gonzales v. Williams, No. 11-17-00130-CV, 2019 WL 2710046 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Eastland June 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Winn v. Martin Homebuilders, 10 Inc., 153 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, pet. denied)); Chadderdon v. Blaschke, 988 S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.)); see also Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Tex. 1994) (a party’s right under Rule 166a(c) is to have the minimum notice of the hearing); Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ) (referring to a twenty-one-day requirement to be f | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Stanleygreen1 sentence2000With respect to section 724.041(b) of the Texas Transportation Code, section 159.9 of Title 1 of TAC serves to "fill[] a gap . . . as to how the minimum notice of hearing requirement is calculated." Stanley , 982 S.W.2d at 38 (discussing the interaction of section 159.9(d) of Title 1 of TAC and section 724.041(b) of the Code). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crenshaw, Bradley Kelton
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 6 466. 2014Id. at 466 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Hart
green
1 sentence1975E. g., Ex parte Peterson, 444 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex.1969); Ex parte Hart, 520 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1975). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.