19 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re McAllen Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences2019Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d at 464 (stating that the cost-benefit analysis regarding the adequacy of a remedy by appeal “depends heavily on circumstances” and “must be guided by analysis of principles rather than simple rules that treat cases as categories”). 2012See id. | 7 | 7 |
Roberts v. Williamsongreen2 sentences2017"When recognizing a new cause of action and the accompanying expansion of duty, we must perform something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure that this expansion of liability is justified.” Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex. 2003); see also Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856, 878 (Tex. 2014) (“The analysis is complex, requiring consideration of a number of non-dispositive factors including, but not limited to: the foreseeability, likelihood, and magnitude of the risk of injury; the existence and adequacy of other protections against the risk; the magnitude of the burden of gua 2017When deciding whether to recognize a new cause of action, courts “must perform something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure that this expansion of liability is justified.” Kinsel, 526 S.W.3d at 423 n.6, 2017 WL 2324392 , at 9 n.6 (quoting Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex. 2003)). | 5 | 6 |
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter Ex Rel. Cartergreen2 sentences2008Id. at 509 . 2008Id. at 507 (“The [CPSC] specifically noted that a higher ( [ninety] percent) acceptance criterion was also considered, but rejected because the higher performance level [was] not commercially or technically feasible for many firms and would have substantial adverse effects on manufacturing and competition, and would increase costs disproportionate to benefits.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trustgreen2 sentences2017"When recognizing a new cause of action and the accompanying expansion of duty, we must perform something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure that this expansion of liability is justified.” Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex. 2003); see also Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856, 878 (Tex. 2014) (“The analysis is complex, requiring consideration of a number of non-dispositive factors including, but not limited to: the foreseeability, likelihood, and magnitude of the risk of injury; the existence and adequacy of other protections against the risk; the magnitude of the burden of gua 2016See Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856, 878 (Tex.2014) (“When deciding whether to recognize ‘a new cause of action and the accompanying expansion of duty,’ this Court ‘perform[s] something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure that this expansion of liability is justified.’”) (quoting Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex.2003)). | 2 | 2 |
Bird v. W.C.W.green2 sentences2003See, e.g., Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex.1994). 2003See, e.g., Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex. 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 |
|---|---|---|
Virginia O. Kinsel, as Attorney-In-Fact for J. Frank Kinsel, J. Frank Kinsel, Jr., Carole K. Edwards, and Catherine K. Collins v. Jane O. Lindsey, Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Lesey B. Kinsel Trust, Robert N. Oliver, Keith Branyon and Jackson Walker, Llp
green
2 sentences2018When deciding to recognize a new cause of action, courts “must perform something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure that this expansion of liability is justified.” See Kinsel v. Lindsey, 526 S.W.3d 411 , 423 n.6 (Tex. 2017). 2017When deciding whether to recognize a new cause of action, courts “must perform something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure that this expansion of liability is justified.” Kinsel, 526 S.W.3d at 423 n.6, 2017 WL 2324392 , at 9 n.6 (quoting Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex. 2003)). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Carla Strickland v. Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen
green
2 sentences2015Page 12 397 S.W.3d 184 , 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 470 (Cite as: 397 S.W.3d 184 ) ing a new cause of action and the accompanying Moreover, they seek damages they plainly expansion of duty, we must *195 perform could not seek if other close relatives (or friends) something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure were negligently killed: siblings, step-children, FN61 FN65 that this expansion of liability is justified.” grandparents, dear friends, and others. 2015Page 12 397 S.W.3d 184 , 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 470 (Cite as: 397 S.W.3d 184 ) ing a new cause of action and the accompanying Moreover, they seek damages they plainly expansion of duty, we must *195 perform could not seek if other close relatives (or friends) something akin to a cost-benefit analysis to assure were negligently killed: siblings, step-children, FN61 FN65 that this expansion of liability is justified.” grandparents, dear friends, and others. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cooper v. State
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 81-82 . 2001Id. at 81-82 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.
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.