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 2006–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, Ltd.green2 sentences2016See id. (“Texas courts have defined negligence in the defamation context as the ‘failure to investigate the truth or falsity of a statement before publication, and [the] failure to act as a reasonably prudent [person].’”). 2016See id. (“Texas courts have defined negligence in the defamation context as the ‘failure to investigate the truth or falsity of a statement before publication, and [the] failure to act as a reasonably prudent [person].’ ”). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2014Additionally, liberally construing appellees’ pleadings,33 appellees also assert their UDJA claims against DSHS to the extent the claims come within an internal waiver of sovereign immunity contained in that statute.34 30 See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038(a), (c). 31 See Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2001.033, .035, .040. 32 Similar to their claims under section 2001.038, appellees also sought a declaration based on their now-moot contention that the measures violated the “2011 general appropriations act.” 33 See, e.g., Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004) (we construe | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Stategreen1 sentence2006P. 44.2(a). [4] See Ford v. State, 26 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (citing Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)). [5] State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [6] State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ballardgreen1 sentence2006P. 44.2(a). [4] See Ford v. State, 26 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (citing Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)). [5] State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [6] State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Baylor Universitygreen2 sentences2006See Johnson v. Baylor Univ., 188 S.W.3d 296, 311 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, no pet. h.) (Special note by Chief Justice Gray); Cathey v. Meyer, 115 S.W.3d 644, 673-674 (Tex.App.—Waco 2003), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.2005). 2006See Johnson v. Baylor Univ., 188 S.W.3d 296, 311 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, no pet. h.) (Special note by Chief Justice Gray); Cathey v. Meyer, 115 S.W.3d 644, 673-674 (Tex.App.—Waco 2003), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Oles v. Stategreen1 sentence2006P. 44.2(a). [4] See Ford v. State, 26 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (citing Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)). [5] State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [6] State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cathey v. Meyergreen2 sentences2006See Johnson v. Baylor Univ., 188 S.W.3d 296, 311 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, no pet. h.) (Special note by Chief Justice Gray); Cathey v. Meyer, 115 S.W.3d 644, 673-674 (Tex.App.—Waco 2003), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.2005). 2006See Johnson v. Baylor Univ., 188 S.W.3d 296, 311 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, no pet. h.) (Special note by Chief Justice Gray); Cathey v. Meyer, 115 S.W.3d 644, 673-674 (Tex.App.—Waco 2003), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rossgreen1 sentence2006P. 44.2(a). [4] See Ford v. State, 26 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (citing Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)). [5] State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [6] State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Donaldson v. United States
red
1 sentence2015The Court did not explicitly the case to Justice for criminal prosecution- state why it shifted from the one to the other, derives from Donaldson v. United States, 400 but the best available explanation lies in its U.S. 517, 91 S.Ct. 534 , 27 L.Ed. 580 (1971). ln discussion of the statutory scheme, which ap- Donaldson the Court said: pears between the two conflicting statements We hold that under § 7602 [of the Internal of the rule. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. LaSalle National Bank
green
2 sentences2015In LaSalle Justice Blackmun, who Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7602 (1970)] an also wrote the opinion for the Court in Donald- internal revenue summons may be issued in son, explained that the decision in Donaldson aid of an investigation if it is issued in good was not predicated on its analysis of precedent. faith and prior to a recommendation for crim- United States v. LaSalle Nat'I Bank, 437 U.S. inal prosecution. 298, 307, 98 S.Ct. 2357 , .2362, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 Id. at 536, 91 S.Ct. at 545. 2015In LaSalle Justice Blackmun, who Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7602 (1970)] an also wrote the opinion for the Court in Donald- internal revenue summons may be issued in son, explained that the decision in Donaldson aid of an investigation if it is issued in good was not predicated on its analysis of precedent. faith and prior to a recommendation for crim- United States v. LaSalle Nat'I Bank, 437 U.S. inal prosecution. 298, 307, 98 S.Ct. 2357 , .2362, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 Id. at 536, 91 S.Ct. at 545. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
2 sentences2006Perhaps the Fifth Circuit can find an internal rule coursing through the plurality and Justice Kennedy's concurrence that we cannot. [1] Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 616-17 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] See TEX.R.APP. 2006Perhaps the Fifth Circuit can find an internal rule coursing through the plurality and Justice Kennedy's concurrence that we cannot. [1] Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 616-17 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] See TEX.R.APP. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006Perhaps the Fifth Circuit can find an internal rule coursing through the plurality and Justice Kennedy's concurrence that we cannot. [1] Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 616-17 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] See TEX.R.APP. 2006Perhaps the Fifth Circuit can find an internal rule coursing through the plurality and Justice Kennedy's concurrence that we cannot. [1] Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 616-17 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] See TEX.R.APP. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Meyer v. Cathey
green
2 sentences2006See Johnson v. Baylor Univ., 188 S.W.3d 296, 311 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, no pet. h.) (Special note by Chief Justice Gray); Cathey v. Meyer, 115 S.W.3d 644, 673-674 (Tex.App.—Waco 2003), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.2005). 2006See Johnson v. Baylor Univ., 188 S.W.3d 296, 311 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, no pet. h.) (Special note by Chief Justice Gray); Cathey v. Meyer, 115 S.W.3d 644, 673-674 (Tex.App.—Waco 2003), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.2005). | 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.