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 1954–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
University of Houston v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2022In the lawsuit that ensued, the only issue on appeal was whether Telthorster had conclusively established that he had acted in good faith during the attempted arrest. 34 “The court of appeals applied the particularized need/risk standard that we announced in Chambers and elaborated on in Wadewitz” and then concluded that Telthorster’s summary-judgment proof fell short of that standard. 35 We granted review to determine what good-faith standard should apply under the circumstances. 36 We examined the public policy underlying the doctrine of official immunity and the additional policy concerns p 2022In the lawsuit that ensued, the only issue on appeal was whether Telthorster had conclusively established that he had acted in good faith during the attempted arrest. 34 “The court of appeals applied the particularized need/risk standard that we announced in Chambers and elaborated on in Wadewitz” and then concluded that Telthorster’s summary-judgment proof fell short of that standard. 35 We granted review to determine what good-faith standard should apply under the circumstances. 36 We examined the public policy underlying the doctrine of official immunity and the additional policy concerns p | 1 | 1 |
Telthorster v. Tennellgreen2 sentences2022In the lawsuit that ensued, the only issue on appeal was whether Telthorster had conclusively established that he had acted in good faith during the attempted arrest. 34 “The court of appeals applied the particularized need/risk standard that we announced in Chambers and elaborated on in Wadewitz” and then concluded that Telthorster’s summary-judgment proof fell short of that standard. 35 We granted review to determine what good-faith standard should apply under the circumstances. 36 We examined the public policy underlying the doctrine of official immunity and the additional policy concerns p 2022In the lawsuit that ensued, the only issue on appeal was whether Telthorster had conclusively established that he had acted in good faith during the attempted arrest. 34 “The court of appeals applied the particularized need/risk standard that we announced in Chambers and elaborated on in Wadewitz” and then concluded that Telthorster’s summary-judgment proof fell short of that standard. 35 We granted review to determine what good-faith standard should apply under the circumstances. 36 We examined the public policy underlying the doctrine of official immunity and the additional policy concerns p | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. McSpeddengreen1 sentence1992Jones v. McSpedden, 560 S.W.2d 177, 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1977, 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mendoza v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2007“The public policy underlying this rule is that it would be unjust to permit a party to recover after he has sworn himself out of court by clear, unequivocal testimony.” Id. | 2 | 2007–2014 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Carr
green
2 sentences1983Carr, supra. A quasi-admission will be treated as a judicial admission if it appears: (1) That the declaration relied upon was made during the course of a judicial proceeding. ... (2) That the statement is contrary to an essential fact embraced in the theory of recovery or defense asserted by the person giving the testimony.... (3) That the statement is deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. 1980Carr, supra. A quasi-admission will be treated as a judicial admission if it appears: (1) That the declaration relied upon was made during the course of a judicial proceeding. . (2) That the statement is contrary to an essential fact embraced in the theory of recovery or defense asserted by the person giving the testimony. . (3) That the statement is deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. | 2 | 1980–1983 |
Clyde Mattox v. United States
yellow
2 sentences1954The public policy underlying this rule is well stated in Perry v. Bailey, 12 Kan. 539, 545 , which was cited with approval in Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 , 13 S.Ct. 50 , 36 L.Ed. 917 . 1954The public policy underlying this rule is well stated in Perry v. Bailey, 12 Kan. 539, 545 , which was cited with approval in Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 , 13 S.Ct. 50 , 36 L.Ed. 917 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Trousdale v. Texas & N. O. R. Co.
green
1 sentence1954In Trousdale v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co., Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W.2d 489 , thié Court re-examined at length the rules relating to jury misconduct, and for that reason further discussion here is deemed unnecessary. ' -No reversible error appearing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Perry v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1954The public policy underlying this rule is well stated in Perry v. Bailey, 12 Kan. 539, 545 , which was cited with approval in Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 , 13 S.Ct. 50 , 36 L.Ed. 917 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.