basis of alleged error in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1966–2024 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Team Rocket, L.P.green tex · 2008 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2024 2 sentences 2024“The only remedy afforded by the Legislature when a party loses a venue hearing is to proceed with trial in the transferee county and appeal any judgment from that court on the basis of alleged error in the venue ruling.” In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d at 261 ; see Tex. Civ. 2022“The only remedy afforded by the Legislature when a party loses a venue hearing is to proceed with trial in the transferee county and appeal any judgment from that court on the basis of alleged error in the venue ruling.” In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 261 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (citing TEX.	2	5
Montalvo v. Fourth Court of Appealsgreen tex · 1995 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011The Texas Supreme Court has held that “venue determinations generally are incidental trial rulings that are correctable on appeal.” Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals , 929 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (citing Montalvo v. Fourth Court of Appeals , 917 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam)); see In re Masonite Corp. , 997 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1999) (“[V]enue determinations as a rule are not reviewable by mandamus.”); see also In re Team Rocket , 256 S.W.3d at 261 (“The only remedy afforded by the Legislature when a party loses a venue hearing is to proceed wi	1	1
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appealsgreen tex · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011The Texas Supreme Court has held that “venue determinations generally are incidental trial rulings that are correctable on appeal.” Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals , 929 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (citing Montalvo v. Fourth Court of Appeals , 917 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam)); see In re Masonite Corp. , 997 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1999) (“[V]enue determinations as a rule are not reviewable by mandamus.”); see also In re Team Rocket , 256 S.W.3d at 261 (“The only remedy afforded by the Legislature when a party loses a venue hearing is to proceed wi	1	1
In Re City of Irving, Tex.green texapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011To hold otherwise would mean that virtually any reversible error by a trial court would be a proper subject for mandamus review.” In re City of Irving , 45 S.W.3d 777, 779 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, orig. proceeding).	1	1
In Re Masonite Corp.green tex · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011The Texas Supreme Court has held that “venue determinations generally are incidental trial rulings that are correctable on appeal.” Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals , 929 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (citing Montalvo v. Fourth Court of Appeals , 917 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam)); see In re Masonite Corp. , 997 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1999) (“[V]enue determinations as a rule are not reviewable by mandamus.”); see also In re Team Rocket , 256 S.W.3d at 261 (“The only remedy afforded by the Legislature when a party loses a venue hearing is to proceed wi	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
Hayes v. Home Indemnity Co. neutral texapp · 1962 1 sentence 1966Citing Crom v. County of Cameron, 310 S.W.2d 664 , Tex.Civ.App., 1958; Hayes v. Home Indemnity Company, 354 S.W.2d 600 , Tex.Civ.App.1962, wr. ref., n. r. e.; Marsh v. State, 276 S.W.2d 852 , Tex.Civ.App.1955; Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624 , 180 S.W.2d 339 , (Supreme Court 1944).	1	1966–1966
Crom v. County of Cameron neutral texapp · 1958 1 sentence 1966Citing Crom v. County of Cameron, 310 S.W.2d 664 , Tex.Civ.App., 1958; Hayes v. Home Indemnity Company, 354 S.W.2d 600 , Tex.Civ.App.1962, wr. ref., n. r. e.; Marsh v. State, 276 S.W.2d 852 , Tex.Civ.App.1955; Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624 , 180 S.W.2d 339 , (Supreme Court 1944).	1	1966–1966
Marsh v. State green texapp · 1955 1 sentence 1966Citing Crom v. County of Cameron, 310 S.W.2d 664 , Tex.Civ.App., 1958; Hayes v. Home Indemnity Company, 354 S.W.2d 600 , Tex.Civ.App.1962, wr. ref., n. r. e.; Marsh v. State, 276 S.W.2d 852 , Tex.Civ.App.1955; Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624 , 180 S.W.2d 339 , (Supreme Court 1944).	1	1966–1966
Brown & Root, Inc. v. Haddad green tex · 1944 2 sentences 1966Citing Crom v. County of Cameron, 310 S.W.2d 664 , Tex.Civ.App., 1958; Hayes v. Home Indemnity Company, 354 S.W.2d 600 , Tex.Civ.App.1962, wr. ref., n. r. e.; Marsh v. State, 276 S.W.2d 852 , Tex.Civ.App.1955; Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624 , 180 S.W.2d 339 , (Supreme Court 1944). 1966Citing Crom v. County of Cameron, 310 S.W.2d 664 , Tex.Civ.App., 1958; Hayes v. Home Indemnity Company, 354 S.W.2d 600 , Tex.Civ.App.1962, wr. ref., n. r. e.; Marsh v. State, 276 S.W.2d 852 , Tex.Civ.App.1955; Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624 , 180 S.W.2d 339 , (Supreme Court 1944).	1	1966–1966

Where else courts name it

TX 6 (1966–2024) OH 3 (2017–2019)

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