McInnis v. Mallia (2008)
green
· 145 citation events
across 4 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200820172026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
See McInnis, 261 S.W.3d at 203 (“Ordinarily, however, the deadline specified in the docket control order is the best indicator [of whether there has been adequate time for discovery].”).
“Ordinarily, however, the deadline specified in the docket control order is the best indicator [of whether there has been adequate time for discovery].”
Mizpah presented to the trial court for ruling . . . .” McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); see Ling v. BDA&K Bus.
P. 166a(i) cmt.; McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). , This comment was expressly intended “to inform the construction and application of the rule.” Tex.R.
green
Robert Norton v. Camtu Phan (2023)
An appellate court reviews “a trial court’s determination that there has been an adequate time for discovery on a case-by-case basis, under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Billy E. Anderson v. Patrick W. Knapp (2022)
P. 166a(i) cmt. (“A discovery period set by pretrial order should be adequate opportunity for discovery . . . .”); McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Chamie v. Mem’l Hermann Health Sys., 561 S.W.3d 253 , 256–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.).
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Specialty Retailers, 29 S.W.3d at 145 (citing Dickson Constr., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 5 S.W.3d 353, 356 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. denied)).
green
Pineda REO, LLC v. the Lomix Limited Partnership (2019)
Id.; McInnes v. Malia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Pineda REO, LLC v. the Lomix Limited Partnership (2019)
Id.; McInnes v. Malia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc. (2017)
Joe, 145 S.W.3d at 161 ; McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Robert Tyson, Carl and Kathy Taylor, Linda and Ron Tetrick, Jim and Nancy Wescott, and Paul and Ruthe Nilson … (2015)
The District Court Erred in denying plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Any Deemed Admissions, having Granted only the second set of Admissions withdrawn. 15 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ……………………………………………….. 21 APPENDIX (All documents contained in Clerk’s Record and Reporters’ Records) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Dubois v. Harris County 866 S.W. 2d 787, 791 (Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.], 1993 ……….. 9 McConathy v. McConathy 869 S.W.2d, 341 (1994)……………………………………………… 10,13 Deerfield Land Jo…
green
Stephen M. Daniels v. Tony R. Bertolino (2015)
APPELLANT’S BRIEF PAGE 13 (Emphasis added.) An appellate court “review[s] a trial court’s determination that there has been an adequate time for discovery on a case-by-case basis, under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).
green
Robert Tyson, Carl and Kathy Taylor, Linda and Ron Tetrick, Jim and Nancy Wescott, and Paul and Ruthe Wilson … (2015)
The District Court Erred in Granting Appellees’ Motions For Severance ……………………………………………………… 14 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ……………………………………………….. 15 APPENDIX (All documents contained in Clerk’s Record and Reporters’ Records) 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Dubois v. Harris County 866 S.W. 2d 787, 791 (Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.], 1993 ……….. 9 McConathy v. McConathy 869 S.W.2d, 341 (1994)……………………………………………… 10,13 Deerfield Land Joint Venture v. Southern Union Realty Co. 758 S.W.2d 608 …
P . 166a(i) cmt.; McInnis v. Mallia , 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
P. 166a(i) cmt. (emphasis added); McInnis v. Mallia , 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Mattox v. Grimes County Commissioners Court (2010)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex.2004); McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Raggio-2204 Jesse Owens, LLC and Stacey R. Hammer v. Wayne Morgan; David M. Gottfried; J. Patrick Sutton; Ste… (2026)
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (review of motion for new trial); McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Skyler Williams, Derivatively on Behalf of Blackland Construction, Inc. v. David Gottfried and the Law Office… (2024)
“We review a trial court’s determination that there has been an adequate time for discovery on a case- by-case basis, under an abuse of discretion standard.” McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Carl Owens, Jr., Connie Owens, Michael Terry, and Sandi Terry v. the City of Tyler, Texas (2021)
P. 166a(i) cmt.; McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Bobby Sewell v. City of Odessa, DC Oris, Jesse Duarte, Daryl Smith, Leslie Goodson, Joe Barrera and Bill Carp… (2021)
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Glenda Sayles, Individually and as a Representative of the Estate of Roy Broadwell v. Senior Care Resources, … (2021)
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Alco Realty v. Coastal Horizons Investment, LLC Sudhoff Properties of Houston, LLC Sudhoff Partnership GP, LL… (2018)
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
in Re: Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC (2018)
“A party should not be able to abuse the discovery process by withholding key evidence from a party opponent and then use that lack of evidence to win a judgment.” McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 204 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Ayele v. Jani-King of Houston, Inc. (2017)
In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (review of motion for new trial); McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. Johnson, 167 S.W.3d 460, 467 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).
green
Neurodiagnostic Tex, L.L.C. v. Pierce (2016)
P. 166a(i) cmt.; McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
P. 166a(i) cmt.; McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.– Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
Mary rather that there was " adequate time." McInnis v. Mallia, also argued that in order to respond to Jesus Jr.'s summary 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, judgment motion, she needed to " confer with and obtain no pet.).
green
Ellen Lumenta, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Meyers Revelino Nawawi v. Bel… (2015)
Id. at 200 (applying TEX.
applying TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i)
green
in Re: Roger Arash Farahmand (2015)
Under Texas Law, to enter into a ceremonial marriage, a person must obtain a marriage license and voluntarily participate in a marriage ceremony. 7 After obtaining a marriage license the couple must appear before an "authorized person" who will conduct the marriage ceremony. 8 An "authorized person" can either be: (a) an officer of a religious organization who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; or (b) a person that has the reasonable appearance…
green
Stephen M. Daniels v. Tony R. Bertolino (2015)
Ass’n v. Gillenwater, 285 S.W.3d 879, 882 (Tex. 2009); McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); see also TEX.
green
Mari Regalado v. Sergio Munoz Jr. (2014)
Assoc., L.P., 416 S.W.3d 217, 223 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.) (setting out factors that courts review to determine whether to grant or deny a motion for continuance); McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (identifying factors to examine when determining whether the non-movant in a summary judgment proceeding had adequate time for discovery).
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) C.
green
Raymond Snodgrass, Jr., Individually, as Representive of the Estate of Patsy Snodgrass, and as Heir of the Es… (2013)
P. 166a(i) cmt.; McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Regina Thibodeaux v. Toys \R\" Us-Deleware (2013)
And she cites McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200, 205 (Tex. App— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.), a case characterizing the granting of a no- evidence motion for summary judgment before the expiration of the discovery period as “an exception to the ordinary rule,” and holding that the trial court’s granting such a motion in that case to be an abuse of discretion.
green
Rukmi Indah Idniarti, Rubby Valentina Issakh, Yohannes Roditya, Mulyani Irianti, Dina Novia Sari, Novianti De… (2013)
Cf. McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a no-evidence motion for summary judgment more than five months before the expiration of the discovery period set forth in the docket control order).
green
George Haddy v. John W. Caldwell, Jr. (2013)
Alexander, 146 S.W.3d at 119-20 ; McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Cantu, 195 S.W.3d at 873 ; Ersek v. Davis & Davis, P.C., 69 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied).
green
Donald E. Spencer v. GC Services Limited Partnership and Ross, Banks, May, Cron & Cavin, P.C. (2013)
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Veronica Chavez Vara v. Melissa Morgan Williams (2013)
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Ersek v. Davis & Davis, P.C., 69 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied).
green
Glenn Floyd Smith v. Clement Aldridge, Jr. (2012)
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
P. 166a(i); McInnis v. Mallia , 261 S.W.3d 197, 202-03 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
Notably, Rule 166a(i) does not require that discovery must have been completed, but rather that there was “adequate time.” McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
In Re Guardianship of Patlan (2011)
Notably, Rule 166a(i) does not require that discovery must have been completed, but rather that there was “adequate time.” McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
McInnis v. Mallia , 261 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson v. County Commissioners' Court-Grimes County, Betty Shiflett-Grimes C… (2010)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004); McInnis v. Mallia , 261 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Amir A. Chamie v. Memorial Hermann Health System D/B/A University Place Retirement Home, and Crothall Healthc… (2018)
See generally McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197, 200-01 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
green
Karen Lindsey Smith v. Terry P. Province (2018)
To determine Whether whether an adequate time for discovery has passed, “courts passed, “courts consider consider the the following following nonexclusive nonexclusive factors: factors: (1) (1) the the nature nature of of the the suit, suit, (2) (2) the the evidence necessary to controvert the motion, (3) (3) the length of time the case has been on file, file, (4) (4) the length of time the motion has been on file, file, (5) (5) the amount of discovery that has has already tak…