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 1995–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Khan v. GBAK Properties, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Khan, 371 S.W.3d at 353 . | 1 | 1 |
McKeehan v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSBgreen2 sentences2019Id. at 701 . 2019See McKeehan, 554 S.W.3d at 701 (recognizing that under Steptoe lender was not required to counterclaim for foreclosure or lose its right to do so and holding that debtor likewise was not required to assert defenses to lender’s unasserted foreclosure claim or lose them). | 1 | 1 |
Boyd v. Boydgreen1 sentence2012Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (citing Pharo v. Chambers County, 922 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Tex. 1996)) (providing that in the absence of findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must presume that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Pharo v. Chambers County, Tex.green1 sentence2012Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (citing Pharo v. Chambers County, 922 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Tex. 1996)) (providing that in the absence of findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must presume that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Formisano v. National Community Bank (In Re Formisano)green2 sentences2001In re Smith, 224 B.R. 44, 47 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1998) (holding that the foreclosure held in violation of the automatic stay did not result in a transfer for purposes of § 549(c)); In re Formisano, 148 B.R. 217, 224 (Bankr.D.N.J.1992) (holding that the tax sale held in violation of the automatic stay did not result in a transfer within § 549(c)); Graham v. Pazos De La Torre, 821 S.W.2d at 164 (holding that because the foreclosure *133 occurred in violation of the automatic stay the purchaser at the sale did not and could not acquire title to the realty). 2001There being no transfer, there was nothing at bar to which § 549(c) could apply (even if the Curls had presented evidence satisfying the elements of 549(c)). 2 In re Smith, 224 B.R. at 47 ; In re Fomnisano, 148 B.R. at 224 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. London (In Re Smith)green2 sentences2001There being no transfer, there was nothing at bar to which § 549(c) could apply (even if the Curls had presented evidence satisfying the elements of 549(c)). 2 In re Smith, 224 B.R. at 47 ; In re Fomnisano, 148 B.R. at 224 . 2001In re Smith, 224 B.R. 44, 47 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1998) (holding that the foreclosure held in violation of the automatic stay did not result in a transfer for purposes of § 549(c)); In re Formisano, 148 B.R. 217, 224 (Bankr.D.N.J.1992) (holding that the tax sale held in violation of the automatic stay did not result in a transfer within § 549(c)); Graham v. Pazos De La Torre, 821 S.W.2d at 164 (holding that because the foreclosure *133 occurred in violation of the automatic stay the purchaser at the sale did not and could not acquire title to the realty). | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Pazos De La Torregreen1 sentence2001In re Smith, 224 B.R. 44, 47 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1998) (holding that the foreclosure held in violation of the automatic stay did not result in a transfer for purposes of § 549(c)); In re Formisano, 148 B.R. 217, 224 (Bankr.D.N.J.1992) (holding that the tax sale held in violation of the automatic stay did not result in a transfer within § 549(c)); Graham v. Pazos De La Torre, 821 S.W.2d at 164 (holding that because the foreclosure *133 occurred in violation of the automatic stay the purchaser at the sale did not and could not acquire title to the realty). | 1 | 1 |
Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynumgreen1 sentence1995Consequential damages are “those damages which result naturally, but not necessarily from the acts complained of.” Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynum, 836 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Murphy , 199 S.W.3d at 446 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.