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 2011–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hines v. Hashgreen2 sentences2011The purpose of the sixty day notice requirement under the Texas Insurance Code is to “discourage litigation and encourage settlements of consumer complaints.” Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tex.1992) (quoting Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Valencia, 690 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex.1985)). 2011The purpose of the sixty day notice requirement under the Texas Insurance Code is to “discourage litigation and encourage settlements of consumer complaints.” Hines v. Hash , 843 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tex. 1992) (quoting Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Valencia , 690 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex. 1985)). | 6 | 6 |
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Valenciagreen2 sentences2011The purpose of the sixty day notice requirement under the Texas Insurance Code is to “discourage litigation and encourage settlements of consumer complaints.” Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tex.1992) (quoting Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Valencia, 690 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex.1985)). 2011The purpose of the sixty day notice requirement under the Texas Insurance Code is to “discourage litigation and encourage settlements of consumer complaints.” Hines v. Hash , 843 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tex. 1992) (quoting Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Valencia , 690 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex. 1985)). | 6 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Emeritus Corp. v. Highsmith
green
2 sentences2022Advanced Health relies on Emeritus Corp., 211 S.W.3d at 330 , where we held that “an agreement to abate a case to permit a plaintiff to comply with the sixty-day notice requirement does not in and of itself extend the time for serving an expert report.” Id. 2022Advanced Health relies on Emeritus Corp., 211 S.W.3d at 330 , where we held that “an agreement to abate a case to permit a plaintiff to comply with the sixty-day notice requirement does not in and of itself extend the time for serving an expert report.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.