green
Positive treatment
Issue: res ipsa loqui-tur doctrineTX ↗
Issue: res ipsa loquitur doctrineTX ↗
32.6 score
G Cite
cited 21× by 21 distinct cases ·
…to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation
at p. 741
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Luis Chavez Orozco v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case, in light of new authority, to trial court “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation to this Court[.]”); In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); accord In re Cent.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dark Peak Drive v. Del Webb Communities
Hosp. v. Lucas, 988 S.W.2d 740, 740 (Tex. 1998) (holding that the similar Texas rule does not apply to deposition testimony and requiring supplementing of deposition testimony would "impose too great a burden on litigants"); see also UnitCd States ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex.1998) (Van Waters I). 3 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
Defendants pursued mandamus relief with the Texas Supreme Court, which denied the petition on October 15, 1998 “without prejudice to [defendants] again requesting relief from the court of appeals and this Court after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its rulings.” In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Candido Ezequiel Martinez-Jimenez v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Fausto Dominguez-Sanchez v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Sergio Herrera Campos v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Elmer Alexander Rodriguez Leiva v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Angel Alberto Ruiz Vallesteros v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Dagoberto Hernandez-Villareal v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Ramon Oniel Saravia Bonilla v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam, not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Raul Eduardo Gutierrez Ruiz v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); accord In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Jose Francisco Castillo-Ramos v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Juan Jose Santiago Villalobos v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); accord In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Juan Jose Santiago Villalobos v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); accord In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Jose Santos Ochoa Najera v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); accord In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Saul Antoni Lozano Aguilar v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Adan Michel Reyes Alvarado v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Jayro Jesus Lara Belmontes v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals); accord In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Karen Haffelfinger v. Blake Adams
See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); In re Ford Motor Co., No. 03-08-00617-CV, slip op. at 4–5 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 6, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), available at http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=c2ad5f30-9a14-4b81-8b1c- 7375b6532070&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=4713e0ec-d256-49ff-b657-d58c934ee53a. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field Filed: November 21, 2013 4
discussed
Cited "see"
in Re Ford Motor Company
See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740 , 741 2 We also observe that prior to the General Electric decision, the Meltons, citing Pirelli Tire, took the position that “the same principles apply to both statutory and common law forum non conveniens.” 3 We express no opinion, however, regarding any other grounds the Meltons might later assert for distinguishing General Electric from this case. 4 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Baylor Medical Center, 134 S.W.3d 359, 359 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). ___________________________________________ Bob Pem…
discussed
Cited "see"
in Re Ford Motor Company
See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. , 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Baylor Medical Center , 134 S.W.3d 359, 359 (Tex. App.--Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). ___________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, JusticeBefore Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop Filed: March 6, 2009 1.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte: David Cayetano Vazquez v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (not designated for publication) (per curiam) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals)); see also In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte: Joan Sebastian Pena-Cortes v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (not designated for publication) (per curiam) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals)); see also In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte: Juan Cortes-Fernandez v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (not designated for publication) (per curiam) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals)); see also In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte: German De Jesus Rodriguez Delgado v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (not designated for publication) (per curiam) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals)); see also In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte: Hector Recendis-Martinez v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (not designated for publication) (per curiam) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals)); see also In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte: Eduardo Frias-Gutierrez v. the State of Texas
App. June 6, 2018) (not designated for publication) (per curiam) (remanding case to trial court, in light of new authority, “to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence, make new or additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and make a new recommendation” to the Court of Criminal Appeals)); see also In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Luis Antonio Bautista Estrada v. the State of Texas
See id.; see also In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Rogelio Lopez Perez v. the State of Texas
See id.; see also In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc., 988 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (denying mandamus relief in order to allow trial court to reconsider decision in light of new precedent); In re Cent.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC., Et Al., Relators
98-0222.
Texas Supreme Court.
Oct 15, 1998.
988 S.W.2d 740
1998 Tex. LEXIS 143
1998 WL 716944
Joseph A. Garnett, Lansford O. Ireson, Houston, Kay Andrews, Austin, Robert G. Newman, Lisa Ann Shub, San Antonio, Arthur R. Almquist, James L. Moore, Ben L. Reynolds, Chester J. Makowski, Houston, M.W. Meredith, Jr., Corpus Christi, Andrew Schirrmeister, III, Robert Scott, Valerie Ruth Vance, Houston, Renee Forinash McEl-haney, San Antonio, Michael M. Gibson, Martin P. Detloff, Houston, Jeffrey D. Roerig, Brownsville, William A. Abernethy, Corpus Christi, Karen Patterson Freeman, Joyce B. Margrace, Houston, Cindy A. Lopez Garcia, Luis Manuel Julia, Edinburg, Robert E. Morse, III, Kelly Dick Brown, Houston, W. Wendell Hall, San Antonio, Vic Fields, Austin, for Relators., James Rausch, McAllen, Francisco J. Rodriguez, David Neal Calvillo, Hector E. Garcia, McAllen, Keith C. Livesay, Pharr, Eduardo R. Rodriguez, Brownsville, Karen K. Maston, Houston, for Respondent.
Hankinson.
Cited by 32 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
In this mandamus proceeding, we are asked to review several issues relating to a November 20, 1997 trial court Order on Motion to Select Parties for Trial. These issues include an order abating all discovery except as to the twenty plaintiffs selected to proceed first to trial; an order allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to select the first group of trial plaintiffs; and the denial of relators’ motion to compel plaintiffs to further answer an interrogatory regarding causation of plaintiffs’ injuries.
We believe that the trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider the abatement order in light of our recent opinion in In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.1998). If the trial court determines that discovery related to other plaintiffs should not be abated, then the trial court should also reconsider its denial of relators’ motion to compel interrogatory answers regarding causation.
Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to relators again requesting relief from the court of appeals and this Court after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its rulings.
Justice HANKINSON, did not participate in the decision.