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 2003–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation v. Auldgreen1 sentence2021We agree with the dissent that a plaintiff cannot challenge a 52 Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887, 897 (Tex. 2000) (citations omitted). 53 Post at 2. 15 broad array of regulations, or even a companion regulation, without showing standing as to each. | 1 | 1 |
Camden MacHine & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Co.green1 sentence2015Camden Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Co., 870 S.W.2d 304, 311 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Mayes v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2015Mayes v. Stewart, 11 S.W.3d 440, 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. 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 |
|---|---|---|
John A. Francis v. City of Meriden
green
2 sentences2003Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 . 2003Francis , 129 F.3d at 285 . | 3 | 2003–2003 |
Rebekah Gee
green
2 sentences2021We agree, to be specific, with In re Gee. 53 But Gee was, as the opinion said in its first sentence, “an extraordinary case.” 54 There, “[a]n abortion clinic and two of its doctors [sought] a federal injunction against virtually all of Louisiana’s legal framework for regulating abortion”, challenging “legal provisions that do not injure them now and could not ever injure them.” 55 But 52 Post at 2. 53 941 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). 54 Id. at 156 . 55 Id. 15 that is far different from this case. 2021We agree, to be specific, with In re Gee. 53 But Gee was, as the opinion said in its first sentence, “an extraordinary case.” 54 There, “[a]n abortion clinic and two of its doctors [sought] a federal injunction against virtually all of Louisiana’s legal framework for regulating abortion”, challenging “legal provisions that do not injure them now and could not ever injure them.” 55 But 52 Post at 2. 53 941 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). 54 Id. at 156 . 55 Id. 15 that is far different from this case. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.