Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramchandani v. Jimenezgreen2 sentences2011See Ramchandani v. Jimenez, 314 S.W.3d 148, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). 2011A request for attorney’s fees under section 74.351(b) may be supported by an affidavit rather than live testimony, see Ramchandani v. Jimenez , 314 S.W.3d 148, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.), and an attorney is not required to parse the total fee by showing in the affidavit the number of hours and billing rates for different individuals who worked on the matter. | 4 | 4 |
Academy of Oriental Medicine, L.L.C. v. Andragreen2 sentences2007See id. at 186-89 . 2007See , e.g. , Mokkala v. Mead , 178 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. filed); see also Acad. of Oriental Med., L.L.C. v. Andra , 173 S.W.3d 184, 187 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.). | 4 | 4 |
Ted Smith, D.O. And Austin Regional Clinic, P.A. v. Janet Lynn Wilsongreen2 sentences2015See Tex. Civ. has ‘no discretion but to conclude ... that the report does Prac. & Rem.Code § 74.351(b) (providing that physician not represent a good-faith effort’ to satisfy the statute.” provider may move to dismiss when sufficient expert Smith v. Wilson, 368 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex.App.-Austin report not served and 120–day deadline has expired). 2015See Tex. Civ. has ‘no discretion but to conclude ... that the report does Prac. & Rem.Code § 74.351(b) (providing that physician not represent a good-faith effort’ to satisfy the statute.” provider may move to dismiss when sufficient expert Smith v. Wilson, 368 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex.App.-Austin report not served and 120–day deadline has expired). | 2 | 2 |
Fox v. Hinderlitergreen2 sentences2014See Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 843 (Tex. 2009) (referring to award of attorney’s fees under section 74.351 as sanctions); Fox v. Hinderliter, 222 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. stricken) (concluding motion for a dismissal with prejudice and attorney’s fees under section 74.351(b) is a motion for statutory sanctions). 2014See Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 843 (Tex. 2009) (referring to award of attorney’s fees under section 74.351 as sanctions); Fox v. Hinderliter, 222 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. stricken) (concluding motion for a dismissal with prejudice and attorney’s fees under section 74.351(b) is a motion for statutory sanctions). | 2 | 2 |
Crites v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2014See Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 843 (Tex. 2009) (referring to award of attorney’s fees under section 74.351 as sanctions); Fox v. Hinderliter, 222 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. stricken) (concluding motion for a dismissal with prejudice and attorney’s fees under section 74.351(b) is a motion for statutory sanctions). 2014See Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 843 (Tex. 2009) (referring to award of attorney’s fees under section 74.351 as sanctions); Fox v. Hinderliter, 222 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. stricken) (concluding motion for a dismissal with prejudice and attorney’s fees under section 74.351(b) is a motion for statutory sanctions). | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. EBROMgreen2 sentences2011This Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing the appeal as moot. [ Hernandez v. Ebrom , 289 S.W.3d 332, 333 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007) (mem. op.).] The supreme court reversed this Court’s opinion and remanded the case to this Court for a determination on the merits. [ Hernandez v. Ebrom , 289 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2008).] Even though Ebrom has nonsuited his claims against Dr. Hernandez, we are required to reach the merits of Dr. Hernandez’s motion to dismiss because Dr. Hernandez has sought attorney’s fees pursuant to section 74.351(b)(1), which he is only entitled to if Ebrom’s report di 2011This Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing the appeal as moot. [Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 332, 333 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007) (mem. op.).] The supreme court reversed this Court’s opinion and remanded the case to this Court for a determination on the merits. [Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2008).] Even though Ebrom has nonsuited his claims against Dr. Hernandez, we are required to reach the merits of Dr. Hernandez’s motion to dismiss because Dr. Hernandez has sought attorney’s fees pursuant to section 74.351(b)(1), which he is only entitled to if Ebrom’s report did no | 2 | 2 |
Vanderwerff v. Beathardgreen2 sentences2008See id. § 74.351(b); see also Vanderwerff v. Beathard, 239 S.W.3d 406, 409 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, no pet.) (“Attorney’s fees and costs of court are mandatory under the MLIIA when a claimant fails to file an expert report on a health care liability claim.”). 2008See id. § 74.351(b); see also Vanderwerff v. Beathard , 239 S.W.3d 406, 409 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) ("Attorney's fees and costs of court are mandatory under the MLIIA when a claimant fails to file an expert report on a health care liability claim."). | 2 | 2 |
Mokkala v. Meadgreen2 sentences2007See , e.g. , Mokkala v. Mead , 178 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. filed); see also Acad. of Oriental Med., L.L.C. v. Andra , 173 S.W.3d 184, 187 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.). 2006See, e.g., Mokkala v. Mead, 178 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. filed); see also Acad. of Oriental Med., L.L.C. v. Andra, 173 S.W.3d 184, 187 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Garcia v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2011See Garcia v. Gomez , 319 S.W.3d 638 , 641–42 (Tex. 2010) (holding there was sufficient evidence to support an attorney’s fee award when the defendant’s counsel testified that he had practiced medical malpractice litigation for twenty-five years and the reasonable attorney’s fee was $12,200). 2011Cf. Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638 , 641–42 (Tex. 2010) (reversing the trial court’s denial of reasonable attorney’s fees under Section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code because the attorney’s testimony about his qualifications, familiarity with similar cases, and brief statement about the ―the 2 See Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Perry Equip. | 1 | 2 |
Turtle Healthcare Group, L.L.C. v. Linangreen1 sentence2021See Turtle Healthcare Grp., L.L.C. v. Linan, 337 S.W.3d 865, 869 (Tex. 2011) (rendition appropriate where the appellant waived its request for attorney’s fees). 17 | 1 | 1 |
Medical Hospital of Buna Texas, Inc. v. Wheatleygreen1 sentence2019Hosp. of Buna Tex., 287 S.W.3d at 294 (“Like dismissal under § 74.351, an award of costs and attorney’s fees under § 74.351 is not discretionary.”). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Funderburk Ex Rel. Funderburkgreen1 sentence2014Lewis v. Funderburk, 253 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp.green1 sentence2011Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997) (identifying factors). 8 reasonable and necessary attorney’s fee‖ was non-conclusory and ―some evidence‖ to support the award, though it was ―not conclusive‖). | 1 | 1 |
Victoria Gardens of Frisco v. Walrathgreen1 sentence2008Cf. Victoria Gardens of Frisco v. Walrath, 257 S.W.3d 284, 291 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (defendant’s prayer for general relief insufficient to preserve right to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 74.351(b)(1)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Ebrom
green
2 sentences2011This Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing the appeal as moot. [ Hernandez v. Ebrom , 289 S.W.3d 332, 333 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007) (mem. op.).] The supreme court reversed this Court’s opinion and remanded the case to this Court for a determination on the merits. [ Hernandez v. Ebrom , 289 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2008).] Even though Ebrom has nonsuited his claims against Dr. Hernandez, we are required to reach the merits of Dr. Hernandez’s motion to dismiss because Dr. Hernandez has sought attorney’s fees pursuant to section 74.351(b)(1), which he is only entitled to if Ebrom’s report di 2011This Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing the appeal as moot. [Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 332, 333 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007) (mem. op.).] The supreme court reversed this Court’s opinion and remanded the case to this Court for a determination on the merits. [Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2008).] Even though Ebrom has nonsuited his claims against Dr. Hernandez, we are required to reach the merits of Dr. Hernandez’s motion to dismiss because Dr. Hernandez has sought attorney’s fees pursuant to section 74.351(b)(1), which he is only entitled to if Ebrom’s report did no | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Aviles v. Aguirre
green
2 sentences2010Aviles, 292 S.W.3d at 649 . 2010Aviles, 292 S.W.3d at 649 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Fulp v. Miller
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 513 . 2012Id. at 512 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
green
1 sentence2012Rather, by removing the phrase “against a claimant or a claimant’s attorney” from the current statute, we believe the Legislature made the attorney’s fee provision in section 74.351 more like an award of attorney’s fees under the various statutes entitling prevailing parties to attorney’s fees from the other party rather than a rule 13 or chapter 10 sanction; In other words, by amending section 74.351(b) to read like a *302 statutory attorney’s fees provision, we believe the Legislature intended for fees to be assessed against the claimant only, as is the case with all other attorney’s fees st | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
green
1 sentence2012In sum, reading the language of section 74.351(b) in context and giving effect to all of the words in the statute, we conclude that section 74.351(b) does not allow attorney’s fees and costs to be assessed against the claimant’s attorney. 3 See Tex. Gov’t *303 Code Ann. § 311.011(a); Entergy Gulf States, 282 S.W.3d at 443 ; see also Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.