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 2 courts 2011–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
South Texas Water Authority v. Lomasgreen2 sentences2025The law does not further permit the Conference to claim damages as a third-party beneficiary, a remedy we have declined to extend to the very public that nonmember 22 Id. at 22. 23 Id. 24 S. Tex. Water Auth. v. Lomas, 223 S.W.3d 304, 307 (Tex. 2007). 25 Id. 8 nonprofits exist to serve. 26 To hold otherwise, as the Court does, places nonmembers in a position to steer a nonprofit’s charter for its own benefit and potentially at the public’s expense. 2025The law does not further permit the Conference to claim damages as a third-party beneficiary, a remedy we have declined to extend to the very public that nonmember 22 Id. at 22. 23 Id. 24 S. Tex. Water Auth. v. Lomas, 223 S.W.3d 304, 307 (Tex. 2007). 25 Id. 8 nonprofits exist to serve. 26 To hold otherwise, as the Court does, places nonmembers in a position to steer a nonprofit’s charter for its own benefit and potentially at the public’s expense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Daniel Villegasgreen1 sentence2020By the terms of Article 28.01, that hearing might address several matters, including “discovery.” Id. § 1(8); see also State v. Villegas, 506 S.W.3d 717, 730 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2016, pet. dism’d, improvidently granted) (“The State recognizes that in general the trial court has the discretion to conduct a pretrial hearing on preliminary matters, including the admissibility of evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Velasquezgreen1 sentence2018See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 28.01, § 1 (West 2006)(“The court may set any criminal case for a pre-trial hearing before it is set for trial upon its merits, and direct the defendant and his attorney, if any of record, and the State’s attorney, to appear before the court at the time and place stated in the court’s order for a conference and hearing.”); State v. Velasquez, 539 S.W.3d 289, 292-93 (Tex.Crim.App. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. Assurance Services, N.A.green1 sentence2011See Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. Assurance Servs., 972 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998); see also Fort Bend County v. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Comm'n, 818 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Fort Bend County v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissiongreen1 sentence2011See Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. Assurance Servs., 972 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998); see also Fort Bend County v. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Comm'n, 818 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru
green
1 sentence2022Within the Conference’s motion to reconsider, it cites two opinions that issued while its amended plea to the jurisdiction was pending but before the trial court signed its July 28, 2020 order: • Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, 602 S.W.3d at 417, decided May 22, 2020; and • Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020), which was decided on July 8, 2020. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Mason
green
1 sentence2016The pre-trial hearing shall be to determine any of the following matters: [[Image here]] (6) Motions to suppress evidence— When a hearing on the motion to suppress evidence is granted, the court may determine the merits of said motion on' the motions themselves, or upon opposing affidavits, or upon oral testimony, subject to the discretion of the court; Id. art. 28Í01, § 1(6).' The Code of Criminal Procedure does not require the trial court to set a motion to suppress for a hearing prior to trial. | 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.