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 1998–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bernard Johnson, Inc. v. Continental Constructors, Inc.green1 sentence2017C & A Investments, Inc. v. Bonnet Resources Corp., 959 S.W.2d 258, 262 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1997, writ denied)(agent who negotiated loan agreement could not be liable for agreement it was not a party to and did not sign); Bernard Johnson, Inc. v. Continental Constructors, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Tex.App.-- Austin 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.)(“As a general rule, a suit for breach of contract may not be maintained against a person who is not a party to the contract, particularly a non-party who is assigned duties by the terms of the contract.”). | 1 | 1 |
C & a Investments, Inc. v. Bonnet Resources Corp.green1 sentence2017C & A Investments, Inc. v. Bonnet Resources Corp., 959 S.W.2d 258, 262 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1997, writ denied)(agent who negotiated loan agreement could not be liable for agreement it was not a party to and did not sign); Bernard Johnson, Inc. v. Continental Constructors, Inc., 630 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Tex.App.-- Austin 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.)(“As a general rule, a suit for breach of contract may not be maintained against a person who is not a party to the contract, particularly a non-party who is assigned duties by the terms of the contract.”). | 1 | 1 |
Schoeffler v. Dentongreen1 sentence2012See Shenandoah Assocs. v. J & K Props., Inc., 741 S.W.2d 470, 484 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied) (op. on reh’g) (all findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to uphold attorney’s fees award deemed in favor of judgment where no findings requested or filed); Schaeffler v. Denton, 813 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) (when findings of fact and conclusions of law are not requested and none are filed, reviewing court will affirm trial court’s order on any reasonable theory supported by evidence and authorized by law); cf. Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. As | 1 | 1 |
Shenandoah Associates v. J & K Properties, Inc.green1 sentence2012See Shenandoah Assocs. v. J & K Props., Inc., 741 S.W.2d 470, 484 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied) (op. on reh’g) (all findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to uphold attorney’s fees award deemed in favor of judgment where no findings requested or filed); Schaeffler v. Denton, 813 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) (when findings of fact and conclusions of law are not requested and none are filed, reviewing court will affirm trial court’s order on any reasonable theory supported by evidence and authorized by law); cf. Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. As | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. Assurance Services, N.A.green2 sentences2012See Shenandoah Assocs. v. J & K Props., Inc., 741 S.W.2d 470, 484 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied) (op. on reh’g) (all findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to uphold attorney’s fees award deemed in favor of judgment where no findings requested or filed); Schaeffler v. Denton, 813 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) (when findings of fact and conclusions of law are not requested and none are filed, reviewing court will affirm trial court’s order on any reasonable theory supported by evidence and authorized by law); cf. Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. As 2012See Bryant, 972 S.W.2d at 31 (in absence of reporter’s record, appellate court indulges every presumption in favor of trial court’s findings). | 1 | 1 |
Park Place Hospital v. Estate of Milogreen1 sentence2006Park Place Hosp. v. Milo , 909 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Packergreen1 sentence2004Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.green1 sentence1998Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985); Ross v. Arkwright Mut. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Lipsky
green
1 sentence2017Although circumstantial evidence may be a properly considered in response to a TCPA motion, In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 591 , the circumstantial evidence here is far from clear and specific. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
American Heritage Capital, LP v. Dinah Gonzalez and Alan Gonzalez
green
1 sentence2016Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d at 872-73 ; Ghosh, 251 S.W.3d at 866-67 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
GJP, INC. v. Ghosh
green
1 sentence2016Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d at 872-73 ; Ghosh, 251 S.W.3d at 866-67 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lansing v. Southwest Airlines Co.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 632-33 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.