section 101.022(a) premises liability case (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

section 101.022(a) premises liability case in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2008 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
City of Corsicana v. Stewartgreen
tex · 2008 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008“Actual knowledge requires knowledge that the dangerous condition existed at the time of the accident, as opposed to constructive knowledge, which can be established by facts or inferences that a dangerous condition could develop over time.” City of Corsicana, 249 S.W.3d at 415 (per curiam) (adding that, in an premises liability case under section 101.022(a) involving a flooded low-water crossing, “the Legislature required that the City actually know that the crossing was flooded at the time of the accident”).

2008"Actual knowledge requires knowledge that the dangerous condition existed at the time of the accident, as opposed to constructive knowledge, which can be established by facts or inferences that a dangerous condition could develop over time." City of Corsicana , ___ S.W.3d at ___, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 218, at *5 (per curiam) (adding that, in an premises liability case under section 101.022(a) involving a flooded low-water crossing, "the Legislature required that the City actually know that the crossing was flooded at the time of the accident").

33

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda green
tex · 2004
2 sentences

2006Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 233 .

2006Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 233 .

22006–2006
Trevathan v. State green
texapp · 1987
1 sentence

2006Alleging premises liability under Section 101.022(a), the Tre-vathans claimed that the State had failed to provide adequate security, and that the State “knew, or should have known, that dangerous persons entered the premises after the security guard left the premises.” Id. at 500-02 .

12006–2006

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check