43 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1951–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venturegreen2 sentences2021See Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004) (“The trial court may order a continuance of a summary judgment hearing if it appears ‘from the affidavits of a party opposing the 16 motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition.’”) (quoting TEX. 2017See, e.g., Joe, 145 S.W.3d at 161-62 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance for jurisdictional discovery where discovery sought was not material to issue of official immunity); Quested, 440 S.W.3d at 282-83 (same where no showing that jurisdictional discovery sought was material to assessment of plea); Klumb, 405 S.W.3d at 227-28 (same where “[n]one of the discovery mentioned by Plaintiffs could have raised a fact issue material to the determination of the jurisdictional plea”). | 3 | 3 |
Villegas v. Cartergreen2 sentences2010See Villegas v. Carter , 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986). 2010See Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986). | 2 | 2 |
Janecka v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Janecka, 937 S.W.2d at 468 . 2008See Janecka , 937 S.W.2d at 468 . | 2 | 2 |
O'NEAL v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See O'Neal v. State , 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. 2002See O=Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Diocese of Galveston-Houston v. Stonegreen1 sentence2023See Diocese of Galveston-Hous. v. Stone, 892 S.W.2d 169, 174 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding) (“Thus, we believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in taking steps to clarify the factual context of the Diocese’s jurisdictional challenge and that the mandamus at this stage of the proceeding is premature.”); see also In re Tex. Dep’t of Ins., 2010 WL 3596844 , at *2 (denying mandamus relief for the trial court’s order granting a continuance of a hearing on a plea to the jurisdiction where the record failed to establish that the court had not set the hearing | 1 | 1 |
Barnett v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw for abuse of discretion.” Barnett v. State, 344 S.W.3d 6, 24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d) (citing King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw for abuse of discretion.” Barnett v. State, 344 S.W.3d 6, 24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d) (citing King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Angelo R. Carrillo v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Smith v. State, No. 06-14-00158-CR, 2015 WL 1246009 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 17, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 Counsel also could have decided that an objection would lead to a continuance of the hearing to assure the appearance of the analyst, whose testimony establishing the reliability of 1 We do not cite any of these unpublished cases for their precedential value, but merely to explain the current state of the law on this issue in Texas. 2 Although this unpublished case has no precedential value, we may take guidance from it “as an aid in develop | 1 | 1 |
Beard v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2018See Beard v. Gonzalez, 924 S.W.2d 763, 765 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, orig. proceeding) (if opponent of motion to transfer venue wants to claim inadequate time to conduct discovery, it must preserve error by filing motion for continuance). | 1 | 1 |
Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension Systemgreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Joe, 145 S.W.3d at 161-62 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance for jurisdictional discovery where discovery sought was not material to issue of official immunity); Quested, 440 S.W.3d at 282-83 (same where no showing that jurisdictional discovery sought was material to assessment of plea); Klumb, 405 S.W.3d at 227-28 (same where “[n]one of the discovery mentioned by Plaintiffs could have raised a fact issue material to the determination of the jurisdictional plea”). | 1 | 1 |
Nancy Quested v. the City of Houstongreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Joe, 145 S.W.3d at 161-62 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance for jurisdictional discovery where discovery sought was not material to issue of official immunity); Quested, 440 S.W.3d at 282-83 (same where no showing that jurisdictional discovery sought was material to assessment of plea); Klumb, 405 S.W.3d at 227-28 (same where “[n]one of the discovery mentioned by Plaintiffs could have raised a fact issue material to the determination of the jurisdictional plea”). | 1 | 1 |
Ketchum v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Ketchum v. State, 199 S.W.3d 581, 593 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref’d) (“Even assuming he preserved error, Ketchum did not state that a continuance was necessary to discover or prepare a defense and, accordingly, he received the notice minimally required to satisfy due process.”); Majors v. State, No. 07-07-0259-CR, 2008 WL 5401593 , *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d) (“…it appears to this court that appellant’s position is exactly the same as that described in Villescas. 13 Appellant did not request a continuance and had no defense to the second enhancement paragra | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2014See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ; Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ; Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Furygreen1 sentence2013Figueroa’s failure to 3 See also Alcorta v. State, No. 14-10-00827-CR, 2011 WL 3672091 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that appellant waived any Brady error related to untimely production of documents after jury verdict by failing to request a continuance of the hearing); Balca v. State, No. 01-95-00482-CR, 2000 WL 1593790 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 26, 2000, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (concluding that appellant waived any error resulting from untimely disclosure of alleged | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Figueroa’s failure to 3 See also Alcorta v. State, No. 14-10-00827-CR, 2011 WL 3672091 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that appellant waived any Brady error related to untimely production of documents after jury verdict by failing to request a continuance of the hearing); Balca v. State, No. 01-95-00482-CR, 2000 WL 1593790 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 26, 2000, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (concluding that appellant waived any error resulting from untimely disclosure of alleged | 1 | 1 |
Lindley v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Figueroa’s failure to 3 See also Alcorta v. State, No. 14-10-00827-CR, 2011 WL 3672091 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that appellant waived any Brady error related to untimely production of documents after jury verdict by failing to request a continuance of the hearing); Balca v. State, No. 01-95-00482-CR, 2000 WL 1593790 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 26, 2000, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (concluding that appellant waived any error resulting from untimely disclosure of alleged | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chacon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pierce v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ruedas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re JBgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Feldmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Benoit v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aldrighetti v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. Willman
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 3 | 2004–2004 |
Dawson-Austin v. Austin
green
2 sentences2012The court explained that because the defendant requested a continuance of the hearing on the special appearance, she also had to request a continuance of the hearings on non-jurisdictional matters in order to stay within the requirement of Rule 120a(2) that jurisdictional challenges "shall be heard and determined before ... any other plea or pleading may be heard.” Id. at 323 . 2012The court explained that because the defendant requested a continuance of the hearing on the special appearance, she also had to request a continuance of the hearings on non-jurisdictional matters in order to stay within the requirement of Rule 120a(2) that jurisdictional challenges “shall be heard and determined before . . . any other plea or pleading may be heard.” Id. at 323 . | 2 | 2012–2016 |
White v. State
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 299-300 . 2015Id. at 299–300. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Lewis v. Jacksonville Building & Loan Ass'n
green
2 sentences2007See id. ; Lewis , 540 S.W.2d at 310 . 2007See id.; Lewis, 540 S.W.2d at 310 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Ex Parte Shaffer
green
1 sentence2025This Court granted the writ of habeas corpus, holding that “ordering a party to be represented by an attorney abridges that person’s right to be heard by himself” and that if the “lack of an attorney was being used to unnecessarily delay trial or was abusing the continuance privilege, the proper action would have been to order him to proceed to trial as set, with or without representation.” Id. at 302 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sodipo v. State
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Garrels, Ex Parte Elizabeth Ann
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Amir A. Chamie v. Memorial Hermann Health System D/B/A University Place Retirement Home, and Crothall Healthcare, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 256–57. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Coleman v. Woolf
green
1 sentence2019In any event, we do not have a reporter’s record from the summary- judgment hearing to support such an assertion even if Hobson had advanced it here. 31 to objections); Coleman v. Woolf, 129 S.W.3d 744 , 749–50 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (holding that in absence of timely request, objection, or motion seeking opportunity to cure defects, trial court did not err by failing to grant unrequested relief of providing opportunity to cure defect in controverting affidavit; movant–defendant filed objections to nonmovant–plaintiff’s evidence four days before summary- judgment hearing, but non | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp.
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 685 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bench Co. v. Nations Rent of Texas, L.P.
green
1 sentence2016See McKinney Ave., 2015 WL 3549877 , at *5; Bench Co., 133 S.W.3d at 909 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Pns Stores, Inc., D/B/A MacFrugal's Bargain Closeouts D/B/A MacFrugals, Inc. v. Anna E. Rivera as Next Friend for Rachel Rivera
green
1 sentence2015Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in overruling L.C.’s objection to the inclusion in the jury charge of the statutory ground for termination based on that decree.51 We overrule L.C.’s third and sixth issues. 48 See PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 , 270 n.1 (Tex. 2012) (“A bill of review is an independent equitable proceeding brought by a party to a former action who seeks to set aside a judgment that is no longer subject to challenge by appeal. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Callison v. State
green
1 sentence2015Therefore, the notice given appellant before the beginning of the punishment hearing was sufficient.”); Callison v. State, 218 S.W.3d 822 , 825–26 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.) (defendant was not denied right to adequate notice when he failed to request additional time to prepare his defense after receiving notice of the State’s intent to enhance his punishment); Arredondo v. State, No. 05-08-00477-CR, 2009 WL 901980 , *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (“In these cases, appellant asserted no defense to the enhancement allegation and pleaded true to the prior conviction alleged in the en | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hamilton v. Pechacek green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Weed v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Gagnon v. Scarpelli red | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Barker v. Wingo green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Stanfield v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Hines v. State green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Shuler v. State neutral | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| McCulley v. State neutral | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.