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.
7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1907–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education for the State of Texas Bellpas, Inc. And Copperas Cove Independent School District v. Lampasas Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2025The Commissioner, Bellpas, and CCISD sought review in the Texas Supreme Court, which held “that the Commissioner had jurisdiction because, under a plain reading of the Education Code, a board ‘disapproves’ a petition by not approving it within a reasonable time after a hearing.” LISD II, 686 S.W.3d at 729. | 1 | 1 |
Altman v. Blakegreen1 sentence2013See Altman v. Blake, 712 S.W.2d 117, 118 (Tex.1986) (providing that we must determine the parties’ intentions as expressed within the four corners of the instrument). 10 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chandler v. Welborn
neutral
2 sentences1958The administratrix has appealed from said judgment on forty-six points of error, which are substantially as follows: points *900 alleging there are no pleadings or evidence to support the judgment; points that appellant has been denied her civil rights and equal protection of the law and deprived of her property without due process of the law contrary to Section 1 of Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States and Section 19 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St.; points asserting that the ninety day period of limitation provided for in Article 3522 1958The administratrix has appealed from said judgment on forty-six points of error, which are substantially as follows: points alleging there are no pleadings or evidence to support the judgment; points that appellant has been denied her civil rights and equal protection of the law and deprived of her property, without due process of the law contrary to Section 1 of Amendment 14 *894 of the Constitution of the United States and Section 19 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Texas; points asserting that the ninety day period of limitation provided for in Article 3522 should be applied | 3 | 1958–1958 |
Chandler v. Welborn
green
2 sentences1958The administratrix has appealed from said judgment on forty-six points of error, which are substantially as follows: points *900 alleging there are no pleadings or evidence to support the judgment; points that appellant has been denied her civil rights and equal protection of the law and deprived of her property without due process of the law contrary to Section 1 of Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States and Section 19 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St.; points asserting that the ninety day period of limitation provided for in Article 3522 1958The administratrix has appealed from said judgment on forty-six points of error, which are substantially as follows: points alleging there are no pleadings or evidence to support the judgment; points that appellant has been denied her civil rights and equal protection of the law and deprived of her property, without due process of the law contrary to Section 1 of Amendment 14 *894 of the Constitution of the United States and Section 19 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Texas; points asserting that the ninety day period of limitation provided for in Article 3522 should be applied | 3 | 1958–1958 |
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
red
1 sentence2015Id., at 29-30 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hines v. Ament
neutral
1 sentence1907Hines v. Ament, 43 Mo., 298 ; Matson v. Calhoun, 44 Mo., 368 . | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Matson v. Calhoun
neutral
1 sentence1907Hines v. Ament, 43 Mo., 298 ; Matson v. Calhoun, 44 Mo., 368 . | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.