function of several interrelated factors (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

function of several interrelated factors in Texas

17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2011 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
El Chico Corp. v. Poolered
tex · 1987 · cited in 11 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1988–2011
2 sentences

2011El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987). “[Djuty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” Id. (citing Otis Eng’g, 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex.1983)); see also Mellon Mortg.

2011El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987). “[Djuty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” Id. (citing Otis Eng’g, 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex.1983)); see also Mellon Mortg.

711
Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc.green
tex · 1983 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1987–2011
2 sentences

2011El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987). “[Djuty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” Id. (citing Otis Eng’g, 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex.1983)); see also Mellon Mortg.

2011El Chico Corp. v. Poole , 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex. 1987). “[D]uty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” Id. (citing Otis Eng’g , 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc ., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983)); see also Mellon Mortg.

55
Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holdergreen
tex · 1999 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654, 659 (Tex.1999) (noting that foreseeability is an essential component of duty).

2011Co. v. Holder , 5 S.W.3d 654, 659 (Tex. 1999) (noting that foreseeability is an essential component of duty).

22
Peek v. Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc.green
texapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989Factors weighing against imposition of a duty are the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and consequence of placing that burden on the defendant.” Peek, 768 S.W.2d at 846 (citations omitted).

1989Factors weighing against imposition of a duty are the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and consequence of placing that burden on the defendant." Peek, 768 S.W.2d at 846 (citations omitted).

22
Walker v. Harrisgreen
tex · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex.1996). “[Djuty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” El Chico, 732 S.W.2d at 311 .

11
Bird v. W.C.W.green
tex · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997Duty is the function of several interrelated factors, including “the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and the consequences of placing that burden on the actor.” Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex.1994).

11
Gibbs v. General Motors Corporationgreen
tex · 1970 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989El Chico Corp., supra at 311.

11
Group Hospital Services, Inc. v. Danielgreen
texapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989Hendricks, 722 S.W.2d at 460 . “[D]uty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” El Chico, 732 S.W.2d at 311 ; see also Group Hospital Services, Inc. v. Daniel, 704 S.W.2d 870, 877 (Tex.App.1985, no writ).

11

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark green
tex · 1983
2 sentences

2011El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987). “[Djuty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” Id. (citing Otis Eng’g, 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex.1983)); see also Mellon Mortg.

2011El Chico Corp. v. Poole , 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex. 1987). “[D]uty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” Id. (citing Otis Eng’g , 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc ., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983)); see also Mellon Mortg.

61987–2011
Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillips green
tex · 1991
2 sentences

1993Greater Houston Transp., 801 S.W.2d at 525 ; El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987); Otis, 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex.1983).

1993Greater Houston Transp. , 801 S.W.2d at 525 ; El Chico Corp. v. Poole , 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex. 1987); Otis , 668 S.W.2d at 309 ; Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc. , 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983).

21993–1993
Avalos v. Brown Automotive Center, Inc. green
texapp · 2001
1 sentence

2007Avalos , 63 S.W.3d at 47 .

12007–2007
Hendricks v. Todora green
texapp · 1986
1 sentence

1989Hendricks, 722 S.W.2d at 460 . “[D]uty is the function of several interrelated factors, the foremost and dominant consideration being foreseeability of the risk.” El Chico, 732 S.W.2d at 311 ; see also Group Hospital Services, Inc. v. Daniel, 704 S.W.2d 870, 877 (Tex.App.1985, no writ).

11989–1989

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check