6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Edwards Aquifer Authoritygreen2 sentences2008In re Edwards Aquifer Auth., 217 S.W.3d 581, 585 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). 2008In re Edwards Aquifer Auth., 217 S.W.3d 581, 585 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
Griggs v. Capitol MacHine Works, Inc.green1 sentence2022See Koslow’s, 796 S.W.2d at 704 ; see also Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241 . | 1 | 1 |
Koslow's v. MacKiegreen1 sentence2022See Koslow’s, 796 S.W.2d at 704 ; see also Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
National Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott
green
2 sentences2015App. -Austin 1931. no writ) Nat' l Ben Franklin Fire ~lns, Co. Y,.Scott, 214 S.W. 604 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarlllo 1919. no writ) See also Applicants brief in support of his Ihirdxwrit of Habeas Corpus for Relief. 2015Scott. 214 S. W. 604 (Tex. Civ App. -Amarillo 1919. no writ) See also Applicants brief in support of his Ihirdéwrit of Habeas Corpus for Relief. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Minnieweather v. State
green
1 sentence2015App. 2007). §Q§§ Applicant argues that in Minnieweather v. State 636 S.W.2d 235 the Statel made it clear that a Defendant could not file a collateral attack on his originaly Conviction while his Revocation hearing was pending, therefore, it is the firm and sincere belief of this Applicant that there exist a clear and distinct seperation between the Original conviction and the revocation hearing and based upon such Applicant chose, with this Application, to challenge not his' original conviction but the violation of his constitutional rights at and duringnhis revocation of probation hearing PRA | 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.