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 2007–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters Leaguegreen2 sentences2024Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 790 S.W.2d 77, 86 (Tex. App.—Dallas), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 801 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. 1990). 2024Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 790 S.W.2d 77, 86 (Tex. App.—Dallas), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 801 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. 1990). | 2 | 4 |
McMillin v. State Farm Lloydsgreen2 sentences2007See Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ; and compare McMillin, 180 S.W.3d at 210 (rejecting contention that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted) with Brown, 963 S.W.2d at 515 , and Hubbard, 76 S.W.3d at 787-88 (both holding that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted). *324 Because Conwell’s testimony failed, therefore, to conclusively establish the $500,000 fee, as a matter law, her interested-witness testimony raised only a triable issue to be determined by trier of fact, in this case, the jury. 2007See Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ; and compare McMillin, 180 S.W.3d at 210 (rejecting contention that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted) with Brown, 963 S.W.2d at 515 , and Hubbard, 76 S.W.3d at 787-88 (both holding that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted). *324 Because Conwell’s testimony failed, therefore, to conclusively establish the $500,000 fee, as a matter law, her interested-witness testimony raised only a triable issue to be determined by trier of fact, in this case, the jury. | 2 | 2 |
Cale's Clean Scene Carwash, Inc. v. Hubbardgreen2 sentences2007See Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ; and compare McMillin, 180 S.W.3d at 210 (rejecting contention that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted) with Brown, 963 S.W.2d at 515 , and Hubbard, 76 S.W.3d at 787-88 (both holding that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted). *324 Because Conwell’s testimony failed, therefore, to conclusively establish the $500,000 fee, as a matter law, her interested-witness testimony raised only a triable issue to be determined by trier of fact, in this case, the jury. 2007See Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ; and compare McMillin, 180 S.W.3d at 210 (rejecting contention that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted) with Brown, 963 S.W.2d at 515 , and Hubbard, 76 S.W.3d at 787-88 (both holding that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted). *324 Because Conwell’s testimony failed, therefore, to conclusively establish the $500,000 fee, as a matter law, her interested-witness testimony raised only a triable issue to be determined by trier of fact, in this case, the jury. | 2 | 2 |
Balderas v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 768 (stating reviewing court does not consider evidence not before the trial court when it made its ruling). | 1 | 1 |
Hopper v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Dragoo, 96 S.W.3d at 315 ; Hopper v. State, 520 S.W.3d 915, 929 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2024See Garcia, 319 S.W.3d at 642–43 (holding uncontested testimony regarding attorney’s fees was not conclusive); Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 . 2024See Garcia, 319 S.W.3d at 642–43 (holding uncontested testimony regarding attorney’s fees was not conclusive); Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 . | 1 | 1 |
Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters Leaguegreen2 sentences2024Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 790 S.W.2d 77, 86 (Tex. App.—Dallas), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 801 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. 1990). 2024Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 790 S.W.2d 77, 86 (Tex. App.—Dallas), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 801 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp.green2 sentences2014We see no Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997). reason why [**8] they would not apply--as the Ragsdale factors do--to an appellate court's assessment of whether Here, the Trust sought over $ 200,000 in damages, fees were established as a matter of law. 2014We see no Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997). reason why [**8] they would not apply--as the Ragsdale factors do--to an appellate court's assessment of whether Here, the Trust sought over $ 200,000 in damages, fees were established as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Bank of Galveston, National Ass'n
green
2 sentences2007See Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ; and compare McMillin, 180 S.W.3d at 210 (rejecting contention that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted) with Brown, 963 S.W.2d at 515 , and Hubbard, 76 S.W.3d at 787-88 (both holding that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted). *324 Because Conwell’s testimony failed, therefore, to conclusively establish the $500,000 fee, as a matter law, her interested-witness testimony raised only a triable issue to be determined by trier of fact, in this case, the jury. 2007See Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ; and compare McMillin, 180 S.W.3d at 210 (rejecting contention that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted) with Brown, 963 S.W.2d at 515 , and Hubbard, 76 S.W.3d at 787-88 (both holding that testimony supporting attorneys’ fees was uncontroverted). *324 Because Conwell’s testimony failed, therefore, to conclusively establish the $500,000 fee, as a matter law, her interested-witness testimony raised only a triable issue to be determined by trier of fact, in this case, the jury. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Dragoo v. State
green
1 sentence2025Dragoo, 96 S.W.3d at 315 ; Hopper v. State, 520 S.W.3d 915, 929 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
1 sentence2025And it is the prosecution which carries the burden of proof.” 407 U.S. at 521 .7 7 We note that by the time of trial, Amua-Sekyi was unavailable to testify, and the officer who showed the complainants the photo arrays was deceased. 26 Ragsdale’s claim that delay impaired his defense is also undercut by his role or acquiescence in the delay, the fact that he moved to dismiss the indictment rather than to start the trial, and the fact that he filed his motion only a day before trial commenced. | 1 | 2025–2025 |