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 1980–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Education Agency v. Dallas Independent School Districtgreen2 sentences2015Because we elect to review these causes under the “public In Texas Education Agency, 797 S.W.2d at 369, under interest exception” to the mootness doctrine, and because we similar facts as these, we determined that the appeal was affirm the lower court's final judgment that the over–19 rule moot because the football eligibility of the litigating students violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, we affirm the had expired. 2015Because we elect to review these causes under the “public In Texas Education Agency, 797 S.W.2d at 369, under interest exception” to the mootness doctrine, and because we similar facts as these, we determined that the appeal was affirm the lower court's final judgment that the over–19 rule moot because the football eligibility of the litigating students violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, we affirm the had expired. | 4 | 4 |
Keith v. Woodulgreen2 sentences1998See Keith v. Woodul, 616 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex.Civ.App.— Texarkana 1981, no writ) (where promisor’s leading purpose is to serve some interest of his own, his promise to accept the primary responsibility for the debt of another does not fall within the statute of frauds and is enforceable, even if oral). 1998See Keith v. Woodul, 616 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex.Civ.App.— Texarkana 1981, no writ) (where promisor’s leading purpose is to serve some interest of his own, his promise to accept the primary responsibility for the debt of another does not fall within the statute of frauds and is enforceable, even if oral). | 1 | 1 |
Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Allphingreen2 sentences1980In Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Allphin, 431 F.Supp. 1168, 1171-72 (S.D.Ill. 1977), vacated on other grounds, 585 F.2d 817 (7th Cir. 1978), the hearing officer in a tax case had responsibility to preside at the hearing, present the state's case, cross-examine witnesses, rule on admissibility of evidence, and make recommendations for the final decision. 1980In Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Allphin, 431 F.Supp. 1168, 1171-72 (S.D.Ill.1977), vacated on other grounds, 585 F.2d 817 (7th Cir.1978), the hearing officer in a tax case had responsibility to preside at the hearing, present the state’s case, cross-examine witnesses, rule on admissibility of evidence, and make recommendations for the final decision. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Point Isabel Independent School District v. Hinojosa
green
1 sentence2015Because we elect to review these causes under the “public In Texas Education Agency, 797 S.W.2d at 369 , under interest exception” to the mootness doctrine, and because we similar facts as these, we determined that the appeal was affirm the lower court's final judgment that the over–19 rule moot because the football eligibility of the litigating students violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, we affirm the had expired. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Whitler
green
2 sentences1980In Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Allphin, 431 F.Supp. 1168, 1171-72 (S.D.Ill. 1977), vacated on other grounds, 585 F.2d 817 (7th Cir. 1978), the hearing officer in a tax case had responsibility to preside at the hearing, present the state's case, cross-examine witnesses, rule on admissibility of evidence, and make recommendations for the final decision. 1980In Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Allphin, 431 F.Supp. 1168, 1171-72 (S.D.Ill.1977), vacated on other grounds, 585 F.2d 817 (7th Cir.1978), the hearing officer in a tax case had responsibility to preside at the hearing, present the state’s case, cross-examine witnesses, rule on admissibility of evidence, and make recommendations for the final decision. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.