reversionary clause (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

reversionary clause in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2025 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Green v. City of San Antoniogreen
texapp · 1955 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996In another example, the San Antonio Court of Appeals acknowledged that “[a] dedication could carry with it the fee simple title, or it might provide for a reversionary clause in the event the property was ever used for any other purpose.” Green v. City of San Antonio, 282 S.W.2d 769, 776 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

11

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
City of Dayton v. Allred green
tex · 1934
2 sentences

1957The case of the City of of Dayton v. Allred, 1934, 123 Texas 60 , 68 S.W. 2d 172 , cited by the majority, falls within the last category and has no application here.

1957The case of the City of of Dayton v. Allred, 1934, 123 Texas 60 , 68 S.W. 2d 172 , cited by the majority, falls within the last category and has no application here.

21957–1957
Super Wash, Inc. v. City of White Settlement green
texapp · 2004
2 sentences

2025However, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals in Super Wash I specifically distinguished the facts of the case before it from cases “where a special permit is authorized by an ordinance requiring the property owner to comply with the conditions of the ordinance within a specified time, for example, within one year of the enactment of the ordinance, or the property would revert back to its prior classification.” Id.

2025Improper Surrender of Future Legislative Power Babcorp argues that Super Wash I supports its position that the reversionary clause contained in Ordinance 3549 is void ab initio because it is an “improper surrender of future legislative power.” See Super Wash I, 131 S.W.3d at 259 .

12025–2025
Weber v. Texas Co. green
ca5 · 1936
1 sentence

1951Weber v. Texas Company, 5 Cir., 83 F.2d 807 .

11951–1951
Wagner Supply Co. v. Bateman green
tex · 1929
2 sentences

1941Wagner Supply Co. v. Bateman, 118 Tex. 498 , 18 S.W.2d 1052 .

1941Wagner Supply Co. v. Bateman, 118 Tex. 498 , 18 S.W.2d 1052 .

11941–1941

Where else courts name it

AL 8 (1951–2026) CA 8 (1933–2025) TX 6 (1941–2025) WA 5 (1927–2009) GA 5 (1946–2010) LA 4 (1949–2008) KY 4 (1930–1988) IN 4 (1943–2024) OK 3 (1926–1961) NM 3 (1999–2010) PA 2 (1922–1988) IL 2 (2000–2000) TN 2 (1991–2004) AZ 2 (1984–1984) MO 2 (1937–1952) WV 2 (1924–1925) MS 2 (1952–2007)

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