Case Citations

999 case law citations with propositions — what each case was cited for

Data license: Public court records

28 rows where filing_id = 22

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: court, year

cited_by 1

citation_id ▼ filing_id case_name citation court year proposition cited_by
178 22 22 Houtex Ready Mix Concrete & Materials v. Eagle Const. & Envtl. Services, L.P. 226 S.W.3d 514 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006 Res judicata prevents parties and those in privity from relitigating a case adjudicated to finality; requires prior final judgment on merits, identity of parties or privity, and second action on same claims Pohl
179 22 22 Gonzalez v. Guilbot 315 S.W.3d 533 Tex. 2010 A judgment is final for purposes of res judicata even if it is appealed Pohl
180 22 22 Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Group, Inc. 250 S.W.3d 78 Tex. 2008 A decision based on the statute of limitations is a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes Pohl
181 22 22 Livingston v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n 2020 WL 1646741 Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020 Resolution on statute of limitations has no bearing on the preclusive effect of res judicata Pohl
182 22 22 Samuel v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. 434 S.W.3d 230 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014 A party is in privity with a party to a prior action when the party is a successor-in-interest deriving its claim through a party to the prior action Pohl
183 22 22 Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp. 919 S.W.2d 644 Tex. 1996 Successors in interest are in privity with plaintiffs to prior lawsuit Pohl
184 22 22 Gandy v. Williamson 2021 WL 2149833 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021 A claim for barratry accrues when a potential client is improperly solicited; the date of client's contract signature demonstrates when solicitation occurred; barratry claims are subject to up to four-year limitations; two-year limitations applies if no contract resulted Pohl
185 22 22 Brumfield v. Williamson 2021 WL 2149335 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021 Affirmed summary judgment dismissing barratry claims on limitations Pohl
186 22 22 Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. v. Schechter 369 S.W.3d 301 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011 Section 16.069 is a savings clause intended to prevent a plaintiff from waiting until an adversary's valid claim was barred by limitations before asserting his own claim; applies logical relationship test Pohl
187 22 22 Smith v. Ferguson 160 S.W.3d 115 Tex. App.—Dallas 2005 The essential facts on which the counterclaim is based must be significantly and logically relevant to both claims under the logical relationship test Pohl
188 22 22 Freeman v. Cherokee Water Co. 11 S.W.3d 480 Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000 Claim requesting interpretation of a deed provision and counterclaim attacking validity of entire deed did not satisfy the logical relationship test Pohl
189 22 22 Wright v. Matthews 26 S.W.3d 575 Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000 Counterclaim for breach of sales contract and action to quiet title did not arise out of same transaction or occurrence Pohl
190 22 22 T&C Constr., Ltd. v. Brown Mech. Services, Inc. 2020 WL 3866659 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020 Section 16.069 did not apply where contractor's unjust enrichment counterclaim regarding Project 1 overpayment was not logically related to subcontractor's breach of contract claim regarding Project 2 Pohl
191 22 22 Rogers v. Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Tr. No. 2 162 S.W.3d 281 Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005 A counterclaim must provide fair notice under Rule 47 to satisfy section 16.069's timing requirement; allegations must be sufficient to inform a reasonably competent attorney of the nature and basic issues of the controversy Pohl
192 22 22 Holman St. Baptist Church v. Jefferson 317 S.W.3d 540 Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010 Section 16.069(a) is intended to prevent a party from waiting until an opponent's valid claim is time-barred before asserting its own claim; courts have limited its reach Pohl
193 22 22 J.M.K. 6, Inc. v. Gregg & Gregg, P.C. 192 S.W.3d 189 Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006 Section 16.069 allows parties already in the action to assert otherwise time-barred claims against one another Pohl
194 22 22 Ball v. SBC Communications, Inc. 2003 WL 21467219 Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003 Courts apply the Code Construction Act when construing § 16.069; the court limited § 16.069's reach based on object, purpose, consequences, and public interest; public interest would be hindered by allowing circumvention of limitations Pohl
195 22 22 Swoboda v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 579 S.W.3d 628 Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019 Cited Ball's construction of § 16.069 with approval Pohl
196 22 22 Tex. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers 351 S.W.3d 103 Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011 A statutory cause of action that does not explicitly provide for survival and is punitive in nature does not survive a plaintiff's death and is not assignable Pohl
197 22 22 PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. P'ship 146 S.W.3d 79 Tex. 2004 Four-factor test for assignability of statutory claims: (1) statutory text, (2) statutory purpose, (3) related common-law principles, (4) whether assignment increases litigation; personal and punitive aspects of DTPA claims cannot be squared with free assignability; assignability of most claims does not mean all are assignable; exceptions may be required due to equity and public policy Pohl
198 22 22 State v. Oakley 227 S.W.3d 58 Tex. 2007 A claim must be capable of surviving the plaintiff's death to be assignable Pohl
199 22 22 In re Xerox Corp. 555 S.W.3d 518 Tex. 2018 Penalties are by their nature punitive Pohl
200 22 22 Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc. 308 S.W.3d 909 Tex. 2010 Assignments may be invalidated on public policy grounds; assignments that tend to increase or prolong litigation unnecessarily or are transparent devices to increase and distort litigation may be void Pohl
201 22 22 Am. Homeowner Pres. Fund, LP v. Pirkle 475 S.W.3d 507 Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015 Courts should inquire whether notions of equity and public policy would vitiate the assignment of a claim under the circumstances; found assignment encouraged litigation rather than curbing it Pohl
202 22 22 LAKXN Income, Inc. v. TLC Hosp., LLC 2021 WL 3085755 Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021 Assignments used as transparent devices to increase and distort litigation are subject to invalidation Pohl
203 22 22 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy 925 S.W.2d 696 Tex. 1996 Courts have invalidated assignments that distort the litigation process Pohl
204 22 22 Wright v. Sydow 173 S.W.3d 534 Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004 Assignments made solely to circumvent settlement agreement releases violated strong public policy favoring voluntary settlements and were void; a court may consider whether assignment has tendency to injure the public good Pohl
205 22 22 Newco Drilling Co. v. Weyand 960 S.W.2d 654 Tex. 1998 Initial partial summary judgment rulings become final upon the court resolving the remaining issues in the case Pohl

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE citations (
    citation_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    case_name TEXT,
    citation TEXT,
    court TEXT,
    year INTEGER,
    proposition TEXT,
    cited_by TEXT
);