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.
8 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alamo Community College District v. Browning Construction Co.green2 sentences2008Alamo Community College District v. Browning Construction Co., 131 S.W.3d 146, 167 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. filed).[ 13 ] Here there was a bona fide dispute between Mid-South and TxDOT and therefore the Prompt Payment Act did not apply. 2008Alamo Community College District v. Browning Construction Co., 131 S.W.3d 146, 167 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. filed).[ 13 ] Here there was a bona fide dispute between Mid-South and TxDOT and therefore the Prompt Payment Act did not apply. | 3 | 3 |
Oscar Ortiz v. State Farm Lloydsgreen1 sentence2024See Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 127 , 135 (Tex. 2019) (“[A]n insurer’s payment of an appraisal award does not as a matter of law bar an insured’s claims under the Prompt Payment Act.”). | 1 | 1 |
Barbara Technologies Corporation v. State Farm Lloydsred2 sentences2022Id. at 823 (“payment of the appraisal value neither established liability under the policy nor foreclosed [Prompt Payment Act] damages”). 2022Id. at 823 (“payment of the appraisal value neither established liability under the policy nor foreclosed [Prompt Payment Act] damages”). | 1 | 1 |
The City of Houston v. Steve Williamsgreen1 sentence2020A. Applicable Law and DART’s Arguments “When performing governmental functions, political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity.” City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex. 2011) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hurstgreen1 sentence2018See Hurst , 523 S.W.3d at 847 . | 1 | 1 |
Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co.green2 sentences2015See Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2004) (“[W]hen one party to a contract commits a material breach of that contract, the other party is discharged or excused from further performance.”). 2015See Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2004) (“[W]hen one party to a contract commits a material breach of that contract, the other party is discharged or excused from further performance.”). | 1 | 1 |
MCI Sales and Service, Inc. v. Hintongreen2 sentences2015See MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475 , 495 n.19 (Tex. 2010) (addressing issue that would “feature prominently on retrial” even though issue was not necessary to ultimate resolution of case). 2 Summary judgment on the Prompt Payment Act claim should be reversed The gist of Pelco’s appeal is that, at a minimum, it was entitled to have a jury decide whether Chambers County committed a prior material breach for which Pelco was entitled to damages and which excused Pelco’s further performance, effectively rendering irrelevant the question of whether Pelco’s subsequent termination o 2015See MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475 , 495 n.19 (Tex. 2010) (addressing issue that would “feature prominently on retrial” even though issue was not necessary to ultimate resolution of case). 2 Summary judgment on the Prompt Payment Act claim should be reversed The gist of Pelco’s appeal is that, at a minimum, it was entitled to have a jury decide whether Chambers County committed a prior material breach for which Pelco was entitled to damages and which excused Pelco’s further performance, effectively rendering irrelevant the question of whether Pelco’s subsequent termination o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. Cohen
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.