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 1987–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palaciosgreen2 sentences2009See Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 880 (Report must explain what care was expected but not given.); see also Kirksey v. Marupudi, No. 07-03-0076-C V, 2003 WL 23096028 , at *3 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Dec. 30, 2003, no pet.). 2009See Palacios , 46 S.W.3d at 880 (Report must explain what care was expected but not given.); see also Kirksey v. Marupudi , No. 07-03-0076-CV, 2003 WL 23096028 , at *3 (Tex. App.--Amarillo Dec. 30, 2003, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Cresthaven Nursing Residence v. Freemangreen1 sentence2020See Cresthaven Nursing Residence v. Freeman, 134 S.W.3d 214 , 233–34 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 2003, no pet.); see also IHS Acquisition No. 140, Inc. v. Travis, No. 13-07-00481- CV, 2008 WL 1822780 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 24, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that an expert certified in geriatrics and “knowledgeable about the types of people who reside in nursing homes, their afflictions, and most importantly, the relevant treatment and standard of care for such patients,” was qualified to testify to the standard of care applicable in a claim against a nursing home f | 1 | 1 |
Centerpoint Energy Entex v. Railroad Commission of Texasgreen1 sentence2015CenterPoint Energy Entex v. Railroad Comm’n of Tex., 213 S.W.3d 364, 373 (Tex. App. – Austin 2006, no pet.) (reversing agency’s disallowance of expense as “unreasonable” because agency failed to make underlying findings permitting court to review reasonableness of its decision). 41 AR Part 1, Binder 2, Item 55 (Final Order at FOF 18(a)). 27 Assuming arguendo the Commission could escape that flaw in its decision, the only basis the ALJ articulated for his decision on this issue was rank speculation that ETI might not incur depreciation expense if it had hired an unaffiliated company to do the s | 1 | 1 |
Cain v. Statered1 sentence1998Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc.green1 sentence1987Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cuellar v. State
green
2 sentences2016In Cuellar , Judge Cochran joined the majority opinion, but she also concurred, adding that, in a case like Cuellar , in which a criminal statute is ambiguous, “the Rule of Lenity requires this Court to adopt the less harsh interpretation of penal statutes.” Id. at 821 . 2016In Cuellar, Judge Cochran joined the majority opinion, but she also concurred, adding that, in a case like Cuellar, in which a criminal statute is ambiguous, “the Rule of Lenity requires this Court to adopt the less harsh interpretation of penal statutes.” Id. at 821 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.