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 1929–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dunn v. Dunngreen2 sentences2022In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, 209 S.W.3d at 314 ; Wittau, 145 S.W.3d at 735 ; see also Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex. 1969) (“The principle that an oral judgment by the court is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of a trial judgment is only a ministerial act.”). 2021See Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830 , 832–33 (Tex. 1969) (stating that the principle that an oral judgment is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of a trial judgment is only a ministerial act); Luna v. Bennett, No. 05-16-00878-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 9357 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 15, 2018 no pet.) (mem. op.) (the same). | 4 | 4 |
TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY v. Lanegreen1 sentence1999“Thus a written judgment signed by the trial judge is not a prerequisite to the finality of a judgment.” Id. at 832-33 (citing Texas State Board Examiners in Optometry v. Lane, 337 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.Civ.App.— Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd)); see also Ex parte Olivares, 662 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Olivaresgreen1 sentence1999“Thus a written judgment signed by the trial judge is not a prerequisite to the finality of a judgment.” Id. at 832-33 (citing Texas State Board Examiners in Optometry v. Lane, 337 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.Civ.App.— Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd)); see also Ex parte Olivares, 662 S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
UMC, INC. v. Arthur Bros., Inc.green1 sentence1984UM C, Inc. v. Arthur Brothers, Inc., 626 S.W.2d 819, 820 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2022In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, 209 S.W.3d at 314 ; Wittau, 145 S.W.3d at 735 ; see also Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex. 1969) (“The principle that an oral judgment by the court is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of a trial judgment is only a ministerial act.”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Williams v. Wyrick
green
2 sentences1999“The principle that an oral judgment by the court is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of judgment is only a ministerial act.” Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex.1969)(citing Williams v. Wyrick, 151 Tex. 40 , 245 S.W.2d 961 (1952) and Bridgman v. Moore, 143 Tex. 250 , 183 S.W.2d 705 (1944)). 1999“The principle that an oral judgment by the court is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of judgment is only a ministerial act.” Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex.1969)(citing Williams v. Wyrick, 151 Tex. 40 , 245 S.W.2d 961 (1952) and Bridgman v. Moore, 143 Tex. 250 , 183 S.W.2d 705 (1944)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bridgman v. Moore
green
2 sentences1999“The principle that an oral judgment by the court is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of judgment is only a ministerial act.” Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex.1969)(citing Williams v. Wyrick, 151 Tex. 40 , 245 S.W.2d 961 (1952) and Bridgman v. Moore, 143 Tex. 250 , 183 S.W.2d 705 (1944)). 1999“The principle that an oral judgment by the court is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of judgment is only a ministerial act.” Dunn v. Dunn, 439 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex.1969)(citing Williams v. Wyrick, 151 Tex. 40 , 245 S.W.2d 961 (1952) and Bridgman v. Moore, 143 Tex. 250 , 183 S.W.2d 705 (1944)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Willis v. Matthews
neutral
1 sentence1929We will not quote from the decisions, but cite the following supporting the rule: Willis v. Matthews, 46 Tex. 478 ; Mayers v. Paxton, 78 Tex. 196 , 14 S. W. 568 ; Tobar v. Losano, 6 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Mayers v. Paxton
green
2 sentences1929We will not quote from the decisions, but cite the following supporting the rule: Willis v. Matthews, 46 Tex. 478 ; Mayers v. Paxton, 78 Tex. 196 , 14 S. W. 568 ; Tobar v. Losano, 6 Tex. Civ. 1929We will not quote from the decisions, but cite the following supporting the rule: Willis v. Matthews, 46 Tex. 478 ; Mayers v. Paxton, 78 Tex. 196 , 14 S. W. 568 ; Tobar v. Losano, 6 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Cline v. Niblo
green
2 sentences1929App. 698 , 25 S. W. 973 ; Cline v. Niblo, 117 Tex. 474 , 8 S.W.(2d) 633 ; Smith v. Lucas (Tex. Civ. 1929App. 698 , 25 S. W. 973 ; Cline v. Niblo, 117 Tex. 474 , 8 S.W.(2d) 633 ; Smith v. Lucas (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Tobar v. Losano
green
2 sentences1929App. 698 , 25 S. W. 973 ; Cline v. Niblo, 117 Tex. 474 , 8 S.W.(2d) 633 ; Smith v. Lucas (Tex. Civ. 1929We will not quote from the decisions, but cite the following supporting the rule: Willis v. Matthews, 46 Tex. 478 ; Mayers v. Paxton, 78 Tex. 196 , 14 S. W. 568 ; Tobar v. Losano, 6 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.