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 1968–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reedgreen1 sentence2022Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. 1986) (citing Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck, 204 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. 1947)). | 1 | 1 |
Jesus Miranda v. Stephen Bylesgreen1 sentence2016See Miranda v. Byles, 390 S.W.3d 543, 551-52 (Tex. App.−Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). 3 SUMMARY JUDGMENT In their multifarious first issue, Appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting the no evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck
green
1 sentence2022Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. 1986) (citing Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck, 204 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. 1947)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Edgar L. Hull, Jr. v. South Coast Catamarans, L.P., Oguz Aksan, Individually, Aksano Catamarans, LLC and James Babcock
green
1 sentence2020We therefore decline to engage in an analysis of the limitations of the “free exchange of benches.” See Hull, 365 S.W.3d at 41 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
McCuin v. State
green
2 sentences1989McCuin, supra, at 830 . 1989McCuin, supra, at 830 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Imperial Sugar Co., Inc. v. Torrans
green
1 sentence1982Imperial Sugar Co. v. Torrans, supra; Watkins v. Junker, supra. Durham’s claim was fully matured on December 10, 1973, thirty days from the date Durham submitted his invoice. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1968Appellant cites and relies upon Durham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 25 , 280 S.W.2d 737 wherein this Court said: “If an accused is in no way interested in behalf of the seller but acts only as an agent of the prosecutor he is not guilty of making a sale.” In Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 , the Durham rule was reaffirmed, this .Court saying: “We think that the New York cases and the Durham case are correct and reject the view that one who acts only as an agent, servant or employee of a law enforcement officer in the purchase of narcotic drugs for evidence purposes, and who is in no way connected or 1968Appellant cites and relies upon Durham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 25 , 280 S.W.2d 737 wherein this Court said: “If an accused is in no way interested in behalf of the seller but acts only as an agent of the prosecutor he is not guilty of making a sale.” In Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 , the Durham rule was reaffirmed, this .Court saying: “We think that the New York cases and the Durham case are correct and reject the view that one who acts only as an agent, servant or employee of a law enforcement officer in the purchase of narcotic drugs for evidence purposes, and who is in no way connected or | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Durham v. State
green
2 sentences1968Appellant cites and relies upon Durham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 25 , 280 S.W.2d 737 wherein this Court said: “If an accused is in no way interested in behalf of the seller but acts only as an agent of the prosecutor he is not guilty of making a sale.” In Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 , the Durham rule was reaffirmed, this .Court saying: “We think that the New York cases and the Durham case are correct and reject the view that one who acts only as an agent, servant or employee of a law enforcement officer in the purchase of narcotic drugs for evidence purposes, and who is in no way connected or 1968Appellant cites and relies upon Durham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 25 , 280 S.W.2d 737 wherein this Court said: “If an accused is in no way interested in behalf of the seller but acts only as an agent of the prosecutor he is not guilty of making a sale.” In Smith v. State, 396 S.W.2d 876 , the Durham rule was reaffirmed, this .Court saying: “We think that the New York cases and the Durham case are correct and reject the view that one who acts only as an agent, servant or employee of a law enforcement officer in the purchase of narcotic drugs for evidence purposes, and who is in no way connected or | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.