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.
14 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1930–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.green2 sentences2015See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203 , 207–10 (Tex.2004) (holding consolidation was abuse of discretion based on “Maryland factors”); see also In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex.1997) (holding that a scheme designed to subvert random case assignment “breeds disrespect for and threatens the integrity of our judicial system.”). 2005See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 207-10 (Tex.2004) (holding consolidation was abuse of discretion based on “Maryland factors”); see also In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex.1997) (holding that a scheme designed to subvert random case assignment “breeds disrespect for and threatens the integrity of our judicial system.”). | 5 | 5 |
In Re Ethyl Corp.green2 sentences2006The Maryland factors include: “(1) common worksite; (2) similar occupation; (3) similar time of exposure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were living or deceased; (6) status of discovery in each case; (7) whether all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged.” Id. at 611 . 2006The Maryland factors include: “(1) common worksite; (2) similar occupation; (3) similar time of exposure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were living or deceased; (6) status of discovery in each case; (7) whether all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged.” Id. at 611 . | 4 | 6 |
In Re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.green2 sentences1999See id. at 603-04 (citing In re Ethyl Corp. , 975 S.W.2d 606, 611-15 (Tex. 1998)). 1999See Bristol-Meyers Squibb , 975 S.W.2d at 604. | 2 | 3 |
In Re Bennettgreen2 sentences2015See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203 , 207–10 (Tex.2004) (holding consolidation was abuse of discretion based on “Maryland factors”); see also In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex.1997) (holding that a scheme designed to subvert random case assignment “breeds disrespect for and threatens the integrity of our judicial system.”). 2005See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 207-10 (Tex.2004) (holding consolidation was abuse of discretion based on “Maryland factors”); see also In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex.1997) (holding that a scheme designed to subvert random case assignment “breeds disrespect for and threatens the integrity of our judicial system.”). | 2 | 2 |
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Martingreen2 sentences1999See Martin, 942 S.W.2d at 712 (applying the Maryland factors and affirming the consolidation of claims from twelve workers exposed to asbestos). 1999See Martin, 942 S.W.2d at 712 (applying the Maryland factors and affirming the consolidation of claims from twelve workers exposed to asbestos). | 2 | 2 |
Swisher v. Bradygreen2 sentences1999Swisher, 98 S.Ct. at 2702-03, 2708 . 1999Swisher, 98 S.Ct. at 2702-03, 2708 . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 658550green2 sentences1998See In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368, 373 (2d Cir.1993). 1998See In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368, 373 (2d Cir.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Consorti v. Armstrong World Industriesgreen2 sentences1998See In re New York Asbestos Litig. 149 F.R.D. 490, 496-98 (S.D.N.Y.1933) V^ccisshig the Maryland factors), aff'd sub nom Consorti, 72 F.3d 1003 . 1998See In re New York Asbestos Litig. 149 F.R.D. 490, 496-98 (S.D.N.Y.1933) V^ccisshig the Maryland factors), aff'd sub nom Consorti, 72 F.3d 1003 . | 1 | 1 |
Malcolm v. Keene Corporationgreen2 sentences1998The Maryland factors are "(1) common worksite; (2) similar occupation; (3) similar time of exposure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were living or deceased; (6) status of discovery in each case; (7) whether all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged." Martin, 942 S.W.2d at 717 (referring to the Maryland factors as the Malcolm factors); see also Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350-51 (2d Cir.1993). 1998The Maryland factors are "(1) common worksite; (2) similar occupation; (3) similar time of exposure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were living or deceased; (6) status of discovery in each case; (7) whether all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged." Martin, 942 S.W.2d at 717 (referring to the Maryland factors as the Malcolm factors); see also Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350-51 (2d Cir.1993). | 1 | 1 |
In re New York Asbestos Litigationgreen2 sentences1998See In re New York Asbestos Litig., 149 F.R.D. 490, 496-98 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (discussing the Maryland factors), aff'd sub nom. 1998See In re New York Asbestos Litig., 149 F.R.D. 490, 496-98 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (discussing the Maryland factors), aff'd sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Sorianogreen1 sentence1997In Texas Farmers Insurance Company v. Soriano, 881 S.W.2d 312, 317 (Tex.1994), the Court stated that it “has never recognized a cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing where the insurer fails to settle third-party claims against its insured.” A Stowers claim is not a bad faith claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Craig
green
2 sentences2022In Craig, the Supreme Court rejected a defendant’s Sixth Amendment challenge, upholding a Maryland rule that allowed child victims of abuse to testify by one-way closed-circuit television from outside the courtroom. 3 This may have been because the defendant moved out of the videoframe he shared with defense counsel. –8– Id. at 858 . 2022In Craig, the Supreme Court rejected a defendant’s Sixth Amendment challenge, upholding a Maryland rule that allowed child victims of abuse to testify by one-way closed-circuit television from outside the courtroom. 3 This may have been because the defendant moved out of the videoframe he shared with defense counsel. –8– Id. at 858 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Maryland Insurance Co. v. Head Industrial Coatings & Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997The court remanded Maryland’s claim against Gans & Smith for a new trial. 906 S.W.2d 218 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
North Texas Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hay
green
2 sentences1930Loan Ass’n v. Hay, 23 Tex. Civ. 1930Loan Ass’n v. Hay, 23 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.