breach of an accepted standard (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

breach of an accepted standard in Texas

5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2012 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Rogers v. Crossroads Nursing Service, Inc.green
texapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
1 sentence

2001Roger v. Crossroads Nursing Service, Inc., 13 S.W.3d 417, 420 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.) (holding that placing a heavy bag on a table that caused it to break and re-injure plaintiff while he was being provided home health care was a breach of ordinary care and not a breach of an accepted standard of safety in the health care industry).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Rubio v. Diversicare General Partner, Inc. green
texapp · 2002
2 sentences

2002Id.; Rubio, 82 S.W.3d at 783 ; Healthcare Centers of Texas, 97 S.W.3d at 620 .

2002Id. ; Rubio , 82 S.W.3d at 783 ; Healthcare Centers of Texas , 2002 WL 369960 , *8.

22002–2002
Zuniga v. Healthcare San Antonio, Inc. green
texapp · 2002
1 sentence

2012Id. at 783 .

12012–2012
Healthcare Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Rigby green
texapp · 2003
1 sentence

2002Id.; Rubio, 82 S.W.3d at 783 ; Healthcare Centers of Texas, 97 S.W.3d at 620 .

12002–2002
Bush v. Green Oaks Operator, Inc. green
texapp · 2001
1 sentence

2002Id. ; Rubio , 82 S.W.3d at 783 ; Healthcare Centers of Texas , 2002 WL 369960 , *8.

12002–2002
Mills v. Angel green
texapp · 1999
1 sentence

2001In Mills v. Angel, 995 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1999, no pet.), relied on by Romero, the court held that expert testimony is generally required when the underlying issue involves the performance of medical procedures because the nature of the alleged negligence is not within the common knowledge of laymen.

12001–2001
Sorokolit v. Rhodes green
tex · 1994
1 sentence

2000Id.

12000–2000

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check