status quo violation (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

status quo violation in Texas

7 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1964–2021 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
City of Arlington v. City of Fort Worthgreen
texapp · 1994 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2016
2 sentences

2016Specifically, the parents ask the trial court to “enjoin [the district] from failing and refusing to provide Plaintiffs’ children and those similarly situated with equal education funding for all students at comparable ’grade levels, appropriately weighted according to the state funding formula.” The parents allege that the district has been distributing funds in an inappropriate manner for years, but contend that the existing distribution scheme cannot be the “status quo” because it is “illegal.” While it is true that “the status quo cannot be a violation of the law,” when the determination o

2011In re Newton, 146 S.W.3d at 652 ; City of Arlington, 873 S.W.2d at 769 .

14
Pharaoh Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Ranchero Esperanza, Ltd.green
texapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021In re Newton, 146 S.W.3d at 652 ; Pharaoh Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Ranchero Esperanza, Ltd., 343 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.).

11
Ennis Bush v. Oceans International, Sumitomo Trust Bank Co., Ltd.green
ca5 · 1980 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982Bush v. Oceans International, 621 F.2d 207, 211, n. 5 (CA 5 1980).

1982Bush v. Oceans International, 621 F.2d 207, 211, n. 5 (CA 5 1980).

11
Famous Department Store v. Stategreen
texapp · 1963 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1964–1964
1 sentence

1964See also, Famous Department Store v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 371 S.W.2d 76 ; City of Corpus Christi v. Lone Star Fish and Oyster Co., Tex.Civ.App., 335 S.W.2d 621 ; Gifford v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 949 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Newton green
tex · 2004
2 sentences

2021In re Newton, 146 S.W.3d at 652 ; Pharaoh Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Ranchero Esperanza, Ltd., 343 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.).

2016Specifically, the parents ask the trial court to “enjoin [the district] from failing and refusing to provide Plaintiffs’ children and those similarly situated with equal education funding for all students at comparable ’grade levels, appropriately weighted according to the state funding formula.” The parents allege that the district has been distributing funds in an inappropriate manner for years, but contend that the existing distribution scheme cannot be the “status quo” because it is “illegal.” While it is true that “the status quo cannot be a violation of the law,” when the determination o

52011–2021
City of Corpus Christi v. Lone Star Fish & Oyster Co. green
texapp · 1960
1 sentence

1964See also, Famous Department Store v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 371 S.W.2d 76 ; City of Corpus Christi v. Lone Star Fish and Oyster Co., Tex.Civ.App., 335 S.W.2d 621 ; Gifford v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 949 .

11964–1964
Gifford v. State green
texapp · 1950
1 sentence

1964See also, Famous Department Store v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 371 S.W.2d 76 ; City of Corpus Christi v. Lone Star Fish and Oyster Co., Tex.Civ.App., 335 S.W.2d 621 ; Gifford v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 949 .

11964–1964
Rattikin Title Co. v. Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas green
texapp · 1954
1 sentence

1964In Rattikin Title Company v. Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 272 S.W.2d 948 , the Court recognized the status quo rule and said: “But in an injunction case wherein the very acts sought to be enjoined are acts which prima facie constitute the violation of expressed law, the status quo could never be a condition of affairs where the respondent would be permitted to continue the acts constituting that violation.” The Court held that when it is determined that the law is being violated, it is the province and the duty of the court to restrain it.

11964–1964

Where else courts name it

OH 10 (1990–2025) NH 10 (1997–2017) TX 7 (1964–2021) PA 6 (2014–2025) UT 3 (2003–2025) WI 3 (1979–2006) ND 3 (1984–1998) MI 3 (2008–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check