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 1918–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Slaby v. Mountain River Estates Residential Ass'ngreen1 sentence2015See Slaby v. Mountain River Estates Residential Ass’n, Inc., 100 So. 3d 569, 578 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Financial Review Services, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen1 sentence2014The court mentioned this defense again in Financial Review Services, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, but the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed without mentioning it. 50 S.W.3d 495, 505 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998), aff'd, 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Ganther v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., Jasper, 61 S.W.3d at 421 (holding that even under reasoning of Blue, trial judge’s comments would not rise to level of fundamental error because they lacked elements that would taint presumption of innocence or prejudice the jury); Ganther v. State, 3 We note, though, that even though the court mentioned the Rule violation to the jury, it did not say whether or how the violation should affect the jury’s view of the evidence. 7 187 S.W.3d 641, 650-51 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (concluding that even if court of appeals were bound by Blue plurality, trial judge’s | 1 | 1 |
Jasper v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., Jasper, 61 S.W.3d at 421 (holding that even under reasoning of Blue, trial judge’s comments would not rise to level of fundamental error because they lacked elements that would taint presumption of innocence or prejudice the jury); Ganther v. State, 3 We note, though, that even though the court mentioned the Rule violation to the jury, it did not say whether or how the violation should affect the jury’s view of the evidence. 7 187 S.W.3d 641, 650-51 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (concluding that even if court of appeals were bound by Blue plurality, trial judge’s | 1 | 1 |
Raw Hide Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Maxus Exploration Co.green2 sentences1994Raw Hide Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Maxus Exploration Co., 766 S.W.2d 264,275 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1988, writ denied). 1994Raw Hide Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Maxus Exploration Co., 766 S.W.2d 264, 275 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1988, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Financial Review Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014The court mentioned this defense again in Financial Review Services, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, but the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed without mentioning it. 50 S.W .3d 495, 505 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998), aff'd, 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2000). 40 the Hospital, and PSC on appellant’s claims for tortious interference with an existing contract. 2014The court mentioned this defense again in Financial Review Services, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, but the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed without mentioning it. 50 S.W.3d 495, 505 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998), aff'd, 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex.2000). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Fine v. Freeman
neutral
2 sentences1918On April 2, 1917, the appellants filed an amended motion for rehearing; this motion is •an exact copy of the motion filed on January 4, 1917, except an addition thereto alleging that the clerk of the court had failed to give appellants or their attorneys of record any notice of the action of the court in overruling the motion for rehearing, and that neither appellants nor their attorneys had knowledge or notice of the entry of the order overruling appellants’ motion until the expiration of more than thirty days from the date of the order, and the motion prayed for a rehearing, or, in the alter 1918On April 2, 1917, the appellants filed an amended motion for rehearing; this motion is •an exact copy of the motion filed on January 4, 1917, except an addition thereto alleging that the clerk of the court had failed to give appellants or their attorneys of record any notice of the action of the court in overruling the motion for rehearing, and that neither appellants nor their attorneys had knowledge or notice of the entry of the order overruling appellants’ motion until the expiration of more than thirty days from the date of the order, and the motion prayed for a rehearing, or, in the alter | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.