DRWSEA, Inc. v. Trinity Meadows Properties, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• asserting that “a sale is not void because of noncompliance with the provisions of Section 6335, but it is voidable by the taxpayer”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Johnston v. Bennett
  Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 2004-08-06· cited 2×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.
  Texas Supreme Court· 1985-05-01· cited 7,748×
• City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority
  Texas Supreme Court· 1979-10-03· cited 5,187×
• American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell
  Texas Supreme Court· 1997-10-02· cited 1,558×
• Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez
  Texas Supreme Court· 1991-11-20· cited 1,096×
• Goswami v. Metropolitan Savings & Loan Ass'n
  Texas Supreme Court· 1988-05-11· cited 415×
• Aqua Bar & Lounge, Inc. v. United States of America Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service and Joseph B. Saltz
  Third Circuit· 1976-07-07· cited 94×
• United States v. Homer Pittman, Helen Jakob, and L. C. Christensen
  Seventh Circuit· 1971-09-24· cited 57×
• Fred A. Reece v. W. C. Scoggins, Individually and D/B/A Spkz Company
  Fifth Circuit· 1975-01-17· cited 38×
• Bartell v. Riddell
  S.D. California· 1962-02-05· cited 12×
• Koby v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2000-06-21· cited 10×

Other cases named DRWSEA, Inc. v. Trinity Meadows Properties, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• DRWSEA, Inc. v. Trinity Meadows Properties, Inc.
  Tex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)· 2003-10-30