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.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2019 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 a & M University-Kingsville v. Lawsongreen2 sentences2014See Tex. A & M Univ.-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518, 521 (Tex.2002) (plurality opinion). 2011In support of that contention, the Associations cite Texas A & M University-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518 (Tex.2002). | 1 | 2 |
Cameron County v. Tompkinsgreen1 sentence2014Specifically, appellant argues that the City, by including the “FTC Rule” language in the amended deed of trust, “specifically agreed that it was subject to all claims and defenses that could [be] asserted against the seller.” The Texas Supreme Court has specifically “reject[ed] the invitation to recognize a waiver-by-conduct exception in a breach-of-contract suit against a governmental entity.” Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 414 (Tex. 2011); see Cameron County v. Tompkins, 422 S.W.3d 789, 797 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, pet. filed). | 1 | 1 |
Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Altongreen1 sentence2014Specifically, appellant argues that the City, by including the “FTC Rule” language in the amended deed of trust, “specifically agreed that it was subject to all claims and defenses that could [be] asserted against the seller.” The Texas Supreme Court has specifically “reject[ed] the invitation to recognize a waiver-by-conduct exception in a breach-of-contract suit against a governmental entity.” Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 414 (Tex. 2011); see Cameron County v. Tompkins, 422 S.W.3d 789, 797 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, pet. filed). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
County of Cameron v. Brown
green
2 sentences2009See id .; Brown , 80 S.W.3d at 555 . 2009See id.; Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 555 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Rey Garza v. Roxana Regalado Harrison and Joseph Santellana, Individually and as Respresentative of the Estate of Jonathen Anthony Santellana
green
1 sentence2019Garza v. Harrison The panel opinion relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent opinion, Garza, v. Harrison, 574 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2019), to justify its finding that the City waived its governmental immunity. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.