reasons given rule (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

reasons given rule in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2021 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Benavidez green
tex · 1963
2 sentences

2006“The reasons given for the rule include difference between criminal and civil actions with respect to quantum of proof, different subject matter, different consequences, and a technical difference of defendants.” Id.

1995“The reasons given for the rule include difference between criminal and civil actions with respect to quantum of proof, different subject matter, different consequences, and a technical difference of defendants.” Benavidez, 365 S.W.2d at 640 .

31995–2006
Tooke v. City of Mexia green
tex · 2006
2 sentences

2021The reasons given for the doctrine “ha[ve] evolved over the centuries,” and its modern “purpose is pragmatic: to shield the public from the costs and consequences of improvident actions of their governments.” Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 , 331–32 (Tex. 2006).

2017The reasons given for the doctrine “have evolved over the centuries,” and its modern “purpose is pragmatic: to shield the public from the costs and consequences of improvident actions of their governments.” Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 331-32 .

22017–2021
Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivares green
tex · 2015
2 sentences

2021Immunity also “preserves separation-of-powers principles by preventing the judiciary from interfering with the Legislature's prerogative to allocate tax dollars.” Brown & Gay Eng’g, 461 S.W.3d at 121 .

2017Immunity also “preserves separation-of-powers principles by preventing the judiciary from interfering with the Legislature’s prerogative to allocate tax dollars.” Broion & Gay Eng’g, 461 S.W.3d at 121 .

22017–2021
State v. Narvaez green
texapp · 1995
1 sentence

1996Narvaez, 900 S.W.2d at 847 , quoting Benavidez, 365 S.W.2d at 640 .

11996–1996
Birdwell v. Pacific Finance Corp. green
texapp · 1953
1 sentence

1956The reasons given for the rule are that the, attention of the judge may not have been called to the motion for conclusions of fact and law, and that without a bill -the appellate court cannot know that the party making the application for findings has not waived or withdrawn it, as he may do.” See also Frick v. Giddings, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W. 330 ; Ainsworth v. Dorsey, Tex.CivApp., 191 S.W. 594 ; Birdwell v. Pacific Finance Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W.2d 957 .

11956–1956
Ainsworth v. Dorsey green
texapp · 1917
1 sentence

1956The reasons given for the rule are that the, attention of the judge may not have been called to the motion for conclusions of fact and law, and that without a bill -the appellate court cannot know that the party making the application for findings has not waived or withdrawn it, as he may do.” See also Frick v. Giddings, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W. 330 ; Ainsworth v. Dorsey, Tex.CivApp., 191 S.W. 594 ; Birdwell v. Pacific Finance Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W.2d 957 .

11956–1956
Frick v. Giddings neutral
texapp · 1917
1 sentence

1956The reasons given for the rule are that the, attention of the judge may not have been called to the motion for conclusions of fact and law, and that without a bill -the appellate court cannot know that the party making the application for findings has not waived or withdrawn it, as he may do.” See also Frick v. Giddings, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W. 330 ; Ainsworth v. Dorsey, Tex.CivApp., 191 S.W. 594 ; Birdwell v. Pacific Finance Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W.2d 957 .

11956–1956

Where else courts name it

TN 10 (1952–2022) FL 6 (1963–2009) TX 6 (1956–2021) CA 5 (1918–2008) CT 4 (1988–1995) PA 3 (1905–1997) VA 3 (1998–2009) NY 3 (1932–1957) AZ 2 (1934–1974) KS 2 (1922–1994) NH 2 (1964–2016) IN 2 (1984–1987) MD 2 (1996–2001) IL 2 (1935–1937)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check