47 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 916 Ford sought interlocutory review of the trial court's temporary injunction. 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 916 Ford sought interlocutory review of the trial court's temporary injunction. | 3 | 4 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See id. 2014See id. - 37 - 04-12-00317-CR Here, the trial court properly overruled Ford’s objection because the State’s argument was a reasonable deduction from the evidence. | 3 | 3 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Young, 137 S.W.3d at 72 . 2015See Young, 137 S.W.3d at 72 . | 2 | 2 |
Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc.green2 sentences2015See Ruiz, 868 S.W.2d at 758 (in unusual circumstance where there is no probative evidence in record that venue is proper anywhere, remand is unavoidable); see also TEX. 2015See Ruiz, 868 S.W.2d at 758 (in unusual circumstance where there is no probative evidence in record that venue is proper anywhere, remand is unavoidable); see also Tex. R. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2011See In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex.2005) (orig. proceeding) ("Because Ford's motion was filed more than thirty days before the scheduled trial date and met the statutory requirements [regarding the required declarations], the trial court was without discretion to deny the motion unless Fuentes established her entitlement to an exception.") (emphasis added). 2011See In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex.2005) (orig. proceeding) (“Because Ford’s motion was filed more than thirty days before the scheduled trial date and met the statutory requirements [regarding the required declarations], the trial court was without discretion to deny the motion unless Fuentes established her entitlement to an exception.”) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Eris v. Pharesgreen2 sentences2010This element is also described as “holding out to the public.” Eris v. Phares, 39 S.W.3d 708, 714-15 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). 2010This element is also described as “holding out to the public.” Eris v. Phares , 39 S.W.3d 708, 714-15 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbertred2 sentences2009See Pirelli Tires, 247 S.W.3d at 676-77 (describing the “private interest” factors that, among others, inform application of the forum-non- conveniens doctrine) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). 2009See Pirelli Tires , 247 S.W.3d at 676-77 (describing the "private interest" factors that, among others, inform application of the forum-non-conveniens doctrine) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C.green2 sentences2009See Pirelli Tires, 247 S.W.3d at 676-77 (describing the “private interest” factors that, among others, inform application of the forum-non- conveniens doctrine) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). 2009See Pirelli Tires , 247 S.W.3d at 676-77 (describing the "private interest" factors that, among others, inform application of the forum-non-conveniens doctrine) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). | 2 | 2 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgwaygreen1 sentence2025See Lightning Oil Co., 520 S.W.3d at 45 (citing Ford claim at the time it considered his motion for partial Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004)). summary judgment, and on appeal, our review of the court's ruling is limited to only what was before the No-evidence motions for summary judgment are governed by trial court at the time it made its ruling. | 1 | 1 |
Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLCgreen1 sentence2025See Lightning Oil Co., 520 S.W.3d at 45 (citing Ford claim at the time it considered his motion for partial Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004)). summary judgment, and on appeal, our review of the court's ruling is limited to only what was before the No-evidence motions for summary judgment are governed by trial court at the time it made its ruling. | 1 | 1 |
Hampton-Vaughan Funeral Home v. Briscoegreen1 sentence2023See Hampton-Vaughan Funeral Home v. Briscoe, 327 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.) (“[T]he motion [for new trial] sets up a meritorious defense if it alleges facts which in law would constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action.”). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See id.; accord Martin v. State, 623 S.W.2d 391 , 396–97 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Clanton v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2020See id. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Pineda v. State, No. 13-13-00574-CR, 2015 WL 5311237 , at *2 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for pub lication) (identifying the type of evidence utilized during a Ford motion to suppress hearing), Wall v. State, No. 02-13-005-52-CR, 2015 WL 2169307 , at *4 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth May 7, 2015, pet. refd’) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same); Schultz v. State, 457 S.W.3d 94, 98 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (same); Murray v. State, No. 05-12-00922-CR, 2014 WL 316604 , at *2 (Tex.App—Dallas Jan. 29, 2014, no pet.) ( | 1 | 1 |
William Gluckin & Co., Inc. v. International Playtex Corporationgreen1 sentence2016The two cases arose from Ford's audit of Semmes's Ford dealership in New York, which included the investigation of warranty repairs and led to claims that the auditors randomly contacted customers.21 1 In the audit, Ford found several instances of warranty refunds charged to Ford where no work was done, and recommended remedial measures to Semmes.219 In response, Semmes sued Ford in New Jersey state court; Ford removed that claim to federal court, where the judge denied Semmes's request for a temporary injunction against Ford's actions and possible franchise termination.220 Semmes then sued Fo | 1 | 1 |
Karl Frederick Schultz v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Pineda v. State, No. 13-13-00574-CR, 2015 WL 5311237 , at *2 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for pub lication) (identifying the type of evidence utilized during a Ford motion to suppress hearing), Wall v. State, No. 02-13-005-52-CR, 2015 WL 2169307 , at *4 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth May 7, 2015, pet. refd’) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same); Schultz v. State, 457 S.W.3d 94, 98 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (same); Murray v. State, No. 05-12-00922-CR, 2014 WL 316604 , at *2 (Tex.App—Dallas Jan. 29, 2014, no pet.) ( | 1 | 1 |
Kothe v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The opinion continued: 2 See Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (holding that passengers in a vehicle may claim a violation of the Fourth Amendment based on an unlawful investigatory stop). | 1 | 1 |
Clinton Ray Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Sanders v. State, 422 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Tex.App.- Dallas 2014, no pet.). (7) APPLYING THE FOUR SHUFFIELD FACTORS TO THE ISSUE HERE When the four Shuffield factors are applied here, it is certain that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling Ford's objection to the jury view. | 1 | 1 |
San Antonio Water System v. Debra Nicholasgreen1 sentence2015See San Antonio Water Sys. v. Nicholas, 461 S.W.3d 131, 137 (Tex.2015); see also Tex. Lab. | 1 | 1 |
Jennings v. Burgessgreen1 sentence2013In response to Ford’s motion for summary judgment, Dodson asserted that the limitations period had not run because he was of unsound mind. 22 Section 21 KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Jennings v. Burgess, 917 S.W.2d 790, 793 (Tex. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Grace v. Coloritogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Penson v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anders v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| High v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brooks v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stewart v. Transit Mix Concrete & Materials Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Granada Corp. v. Honorable First Court of Appealsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Douglas v. Neillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Russell v. Texas Department of Human Resourcesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Radio Station KSCS v. Jenningsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| John Doe v. the Catholic Diocese of El Paso and Msgr. Thomas Rowlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. State
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 494 . 2006Id. | 3 | 2005–2015 |
Ford v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2013A mental-health expert, Dr. Diane Mosnik, had interviewed Appellant and conducted psychological testing, but she could not render a definitive opinion without reviewing the records that not yet been received. “[CJounsel cannot file an Article 46.05 motion until the investigation is complete and they can allege all facts relevant to a Ford claim.” See Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 , 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). 2013A mental-health expert, Dr. Diane Mosnik, had interviewed Appellant and conducted psychological testing, but she could not render a definitive opinion without reviewing the records that not yet been received. “[CJounsel cannot file an Article 46.05 motion until the investigation is complete and they can allege all facts relevant to a Ford claim.” See Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 , 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Guzman v. State
green
2 sentences2009Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 88-89 . 2009Guzman , 955 S.W.2d at 88-89 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2023PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04 (Supp.). 3 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 4 Jones’s testimony was essentially the same at the hearing on Ford’s motion to suppress and at trial. 5 Because they were responding to a reported sexual assault, Jones said he was “looking for two people; maybe somebody intervening -- a good Samaritan intervening.” 2 was a larger commotion than I expected to see for that type of call.” Jones said that at least two vehicles were in the street, others were parked, and “there were some people milling around.” According to Jones, the emergency lights on the officers’ vehi | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hysaw v. Dawkins
green
1 sentence2018The “objective in construing a will is to discern and effectuate the testatrix’s intent as reflected in the instrument as a whole.” Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1 , 3 7 (Tex. 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Panetti v. Quarterman
green
2 sentences2017Panetti, 551 U.S. at 959 , 127 S.Ct. 2842 . 2017Panetti, 551 U.S. at 959 , 127 S.Ct. 2842 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tate v. Goins, Underkofler, Crawford & Langdon
green
1 sentence2017Tate v. Goins, Underkofler, Crawford & Langdon, 24 S.W.3d 627 , 631–32 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. denied). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Green, Jonathan Marcus
green
2 sentences2017Therefore, we hold that Panetti merely clarifies the Ford standard for determining whether an inmate is competent to be executed.” Id. 5 These statements in Green could be misconstrued as minimizing the importance of.Panetti’s illumination of the “rational understanding” requirement that was highlighted in that case under the particular facts the Supreme Court was considering in its review of the Fifth Circuit’s holding that Panetti was competent based on his ability to acknowledge the State’s rationale for his impending execution. 2017Therefore, we hold that Panetti merely clarifies the Ford standard for determining whether an inmate is competent to be executed.” Id. 5 These statements in Green could be misconstrued as minimizing the importance of.Panetti’s illumination of the “rational understanding” requirement that was highlighted in that case under the particular facts the Supreme Court was considering in its review of the Fifth Circuit’s holding that Panetti was competent based on his ability to acknowledge the State’s rationale for his impending execution. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp.
green
1 sentence2013In response to Ford’s motion for summary judgment, Dodson asserted that the limitations period had not run because he was of unsound mind. 22 Section 21 KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748 ; Jennings v. Burgess, 917 S.W.2d 790, 793 (Tex. 1996). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Waites v. Sondock green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.