5 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2026 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brune v. Brown Forman Corp.green2 sentences2002“Common knowledge,” though, is an extraordinary defense that applies only when knowledge of danger is “so patently obvious and so well known to the community generally, that there can be no question or dispute concerning [its] existence.” Id. at 427 (quoting Brune v. Brown Forman Corp., 758 S.W.2d 827, 830-31 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied)). 2002"Common knowledge," though, is an extraordinary defense that applies only when knowledge of danger is "so patently obvious and so well known to the community generally, that there can be no question or dispute concerning [its] existence." Id. at 427 (quoting Brune v. Brown Forman Corp., 758 S.W.2d 827, 830-31 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied)). | 1 | 2 |
Liteky v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026But judicial bias is an extraordinary claim that requires proof of “deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell
green
2 sentences2002“Common knowledge,” though, is an extraordinary defense that applies only when knowledge of danger is “so patently obvious and so well known to the community generally, that there can be no question or dispute concerning [its] existence.” Id. at 427 (quoting Brune v. Brown Forman Corp., 758 S.W.2d 827, 830-31 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied)). 2002The common knowledge defense is “an extraordinary defense” and it “connotes a general societal understanding of the risks inherent in a specific product or class of products.” Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d at 427 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Click v. Tyra
green
1 sentence2025Click, 867 S.W.2d at 408– 09. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.