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 1980–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hobbs Trailers v. JT Arnett Grain Co., Inc.green2 sentences1988Arnett Grain Co., 560 S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Tex. 1977); see also Homblower & Weeks-Hemphill, Noyes, Inc. v. Crane, 586 S.W. 2d 582, 589 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 1980The Supreme Court there held that “the statute does not extend the limitation period when the claim was originally asserted as other than a counterclaim or cross claim.” Id. at 89 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re BNAgreen1 sentence2011See id.; In re B.N.A., 278 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2009, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Wirth, Ltd. v. Panhandle Pipe and Steel Inc.green1 sentence1992See Wirth, Ltd. v. Panhandle Pipe & Steel, Inc., 580 S.W.2d 58, 62 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1979, no writ). [1] "A party to a civil suit in a court of this state brought by or against a state agency in which the agency asserts a cause of action against the party, either originally or as a counterclaim or cross claim, is entitled to recover, in addition to all other costs allowed by law or rule, fees, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the party in defending the agency's action if: (1) the court finds that the action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation; and (2) the ac | 1 | 1 |
Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill, Noyes, Inc. v. Cranegreen1 sentence1988Arnett Grain Co., 560 S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Tex. 1977); see also Homblower & Weeks-Hemphill, Noyes, Inc. v. Crane, 586 S.W. 2d 582, 589 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Sapieha
green
1 sentence2015SeeWilliams, 61 S.W. at 116– the basis of an action, a party to the action may file the 17. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Smith v. Lone Star Cadillac, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006J.M.K. therefore relies on Smith v. Lone Star Cadillac, Inc. , 470 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. App. C Waco 1971, no writ) in an attempt to expand the definition of A counterclaim or cross claim @ to include a third-party action. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.