standards rule in Texas

2018Moreover, when a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), “[we] first review the trial court’s summary judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i).” Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600 .

2017Moreover, when a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), “[we] first review the trial court’s summary judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i).” Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600 .

2025“The pivotal issue in a safety standards-based claim is whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.” Id. at 505 .

2025Rather, the “pivotal” inquiry in such a case “is whether the standards on which the claim is based implicated the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.” Id.

2021This nexus depends on “whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.” Ross, 462 S.W.3d at 505 ; see also Cage, 470 S.W.3d at 602 .

2020This nexus depends on “whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.” Ross, 462 S.W.3d at 505 ; see Cage, 470 S.W.3d at 602 .

2015P. 166a(i) & cmt.; Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008). 8 Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417, 424 (Tex. 2009); King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1030 (2004). 3 nonmovant unless reasonable jurors could not. 9 We indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. 10 When a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), we will first review the trial court’s judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i). 11 If the appellant failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence

2012See id. & cmt.; Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008). 2 First State Bank of Texas merged with Wells Fargo in 2002. 3 When a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), we will first review the trial court’s judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i).

2011Applying the standards and analysis we set forth in Dale v. State , 170 S.W.3d 797, 799 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.), we determine that Appellant = s punishment was neither cruel and unusual nor disproportionate to the offense even if he had preserved his claimed error.

2011Applying the standards and analysis we set forth in Dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797, 799 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.), we determine that Appellant=s punishment was neither cruel and unusual nor disproportionate to the offense even if he had preserved his claimed error.

2005See id.

2005See id.

2006See id. at 812-13 (observing that "the standards for waiver should not be any less stringent in the context of an ineffective assistance claim than when we are speaking of a 'right to counsel' claim”). 2 .

1999The standards for a claim that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated were stated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2062 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components.

2022See Alanis v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Assn, 616 S.W.3d 1 , 10 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, pet. denied); Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“Failure to cite legal authority or to provide substantive analysis of the legal issues presented results in waiver of the complaint.”).

2020First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont, d/b/a the Anchor of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 219 (Tex. 2017) (when party moves for both traditional and no-evidence summary judgments, reviewing court first considers no-evidence motion); Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgeway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004).

2019Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842, 855 (Tex. 2005). 18 Ross, 462 S.W.3d at 505 . 19 Id. 8 To decide whether a plaintiff’s personal injury claim that arose from a fall asserted a health care liability claim subject to the Act, the Ross Court used these seven factors: 1.

2016Inc., 200 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.).

2016See Hamlett v. Holcomb, 69 S.W.3d 816 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (“When it is not readily apparent to the trial court that summary judgment is sought under rule 166a(i) [the no-evidence rule], the appellate court will presume that the motion is filed under the traditional summary judgment rule and analyze it accordingly.”). 2 of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion”).

2016The key question when determining whether a claim is a health care liability claim is whether “the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider.” Ross, 462 S.W.3d at 505 ; see also Reddic, 474 S.W.3d at 676 .

2015See, e.g., Padilla, 559 U.S. at 372 (“[T]o obtain relief on this type of claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.”); Roe v. Flores- Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 486 , 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1036, 1039 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 23 (2000).

2015P. 166a(i) & cmt.; Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008). 8 Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417, 424 (Tex. 2009); King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1030 (2004). 3 nonmovant unless reasonable jurors could not. 9 We indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. 10 When a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), we will first review the trial court’s judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i). 11 If the appellant failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence

2015See, e.g., Padilla, 559 U.S. at 372 (“[T]o obtain relief on this type of claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.”); Roe v. Flores- Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 486 , 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1036, 1039 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 23 (2000).

2015See, e.g., Padilla, 559 U.S. at 372 (“[T]o obtain relief on this type of claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.”); Roe v. Flores- Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 486 , 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1036, 1039 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 23 (2000).

2015P. 166a(i) & cmt.; Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008). 8 Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417, 424 (Tex. 2009); King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1030 (2004). 3 nonmovant unless reasonable jurors could not. 9 We indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. 10 When a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), we will first review the trial court’s judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i). 11 If the appellant failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence

2014P. 103 (emphasis added); see also Furst v. Smith, 176 S.W.3d 864, 869 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (holding that rule 108 incorporates the standards of rule 106 while imposing additional requirements); World Distribs., Inc. v. Knox, 968 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.) (applying the standards of rules 103 and 106 while deciding an issue under rule 108).

2014Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). 4 Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009). 5 20801, Inc. v. Parker, 249 S.W.3d 392, 399 (Tex. 2008). 5 defendant who conclusively negates at least one essential element of a cause of action is entitled to summary judgment on that claim. 6 When a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), we will first review the trial court’s judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i). 7 When reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment, we examine the entire record in the light most favor

2014Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). 4 Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009). 5 20801, Inc. v. Parker, 249 S.W.3d 392, 399 (Tex. 2008). 5 defendant who conclusively negates at least one essential element of a cause of action is entitled to summary judgment on that claim. 6 When a party moves for summary judgment under both rules 166a(c) and 166a(i), we will first review the trial court’s judgment under the standards of rule 166a(i). 7 When reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment, we examine the entire record in the light most favor