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 2005–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appealsgreen1 sentence2016See Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law,” and relator has “heavy burden” of showing, “under the 2 See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus will issue only if trial court’s error constituted “clear abuse of discretion” and there is no adequate remedy by appeal). 3 circumstances of the case, that the facts and law permit the trial court to make but one decision. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Packergreen1 sentence2016See Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law,” and relator has “heavy burden” of showing, “under the 2 See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus will issue only if trial court’s error constituted “clear abuse of discretion” and there is no adequate remedy by appeal). 3 circumstances of the case, that the facts and law permit the trial court to make but one decision. | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See supra note 4. 4: See Simpson v. State , 119 S.W.3d 262, 269 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dunbar
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 695 . 2009Id. at 695 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Mary Louise Serafine v. Alexander Blunt and Ashley Blunt
green
1 sentence2020CODE ANN. § 27.001(4). 22 See id. § 27.001(4)(A)(v), (A)(vii), (A)(ix), (B), (E). 23 See Serafine, 466 S.W.3d at 359 . 9 Having relied primarily on its waiver-based arguments, RubyAnne Designs offers little in the way of a substantive defense of the trial court’s conclusion that the TCPA applied to Dunbar’s claim and justified a dismissal of the case in its entirety. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC
green
1 sentence2018Because the Texas Local Government Code barred the Department from suspending Dunbar more than 180 days after it discovered or learned of Dunbar's rule violation, the Commission's affirmance of the void suspension in contravention of section 143.117 is not "free of the taint of any illegality." Cf. BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC , 519 S.W.3d 76 , 85 (Tex. 2017) (rejecting the Code Construction Act's invitation to consider extrinsic factors such as the "administrative construction of the statute" when deciding the meaning of an unambiguous statute). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.