Fleming Foods of Texas, Inc. v. Rylander

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prior version of section 111.104(b) allowed taxpayer to file claim without obtaining assignment
• holding that prior version of section 111.104(b) allowed taxpayer to file claim without obtaining assignment
• holding that prior version of section 111.104(b) allowed taxpayer to file claim without obtaining assignment
• concluding that when specific provisions of a ―nonsubstantive‖ codification and the code as a whole ―are direct, unambiguous, and cannot be reconciled with prior law, the codification rather than the prior, repealed statute must be given effect‖
• explaining that court should not adopt statutory construction that would render statute meaningless or lead to absurd results
• stating that \legislative history cannot be used to alter or disregard the express terms of a code provision\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).