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 2 courts 1960–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steven Painter Tonya Wright, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Earl A. Wright, III, Virginia Weaver, Individually and as Next Friend of A.A.C., a Minor And Tabitha R. Rosello, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Albert Carillo v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd.green2 sentences2022Control, however, was divorced from the course and scope inquiry in Painter. 561 S.W.3d at 132 (“Accordingly, we disagree with those courts of appeals that have tied the right-to-control analysis to the course-and-scope element of a vicarious-liability claim.”). 2020Id. at 132 (“Accordingly, we disagree with those courts of appeals that have tied the right-to-control analysis to the course-and-scope element of a vicarious-liability claim.”). | 3 | 3 |
Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvaradogreen2 sentences2005Instead, the court’s ruling left the right-to-control test unaffected as the court concluded, “The fact that Web actually controlled the details of Alvarado’s work at the time she was injured, and thus was also an employer within the meaning of the Act, does not preclude the applicability of the Act’s provisions, including the exclusive remedy, to both Tandem and Web.” Id. at 149 (emphasis added). 2004Instead, the court’s ruling left the right-to-control test unaffected as the court concluded, “The fact that Web actually controlled the details of Alvarado’s work at the time she was injured, and thus was also an employer within the meaning of the Act , does not preclude the applicability of the Act’s provisions, including the exclusive remedy, to both Tandem and Web.” Id. at 149 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Islandgreen1 sentence2024Co. of Rhode Island, 789 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Guideone Elite Insurance Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist Churchgreen2 sentences2023Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305, 308 (Tex. 2006). 11 Id. 14 eight-corners are only considered in limited circumstances, which do not apply here.12 Right to Control Defense Liability insurance policies, like the one at issue here, typically confer on an insurer the right to control the defense of claims against the insured. 13 The insurer’s right of control generally includes “the authority to select the attorney who will defend the claim and to make other decisions that would normally be vested in the insured as the named party in the case.”14 Under certain circumstances, however, an insurer ma 2023Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305, 308 (Tex. 2006). 11 Id. 14 eight-corners are only considered in limited circumstances, which do not apply here.12 Right to Control Defense Liability insurance policies, like the one at issue here, typically confer on an insurer the right to control the defense of claims against the insured. 13 The insurer’s right of control generally includes “the authority to select the attorney who will defend the claim and to make other decisions that would normally be vested in the insured as the named party in the case.”14 Under certain circumstances, however, an insurer ma | 1 | 1 |
Redinger v. Living, Inc.green1 sentence2023See Redinger, 689 S.W.2d at 417–18; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414. | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.green1 sentence2019Group, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 442, 448 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (client company prevailed in summary judgment claiming it was a borrowing employer of the temporary worker under the right to control test); Richmond v. L.D. | 1 | 1 |
Richmond v. LD BRINKMAN & CO.(TEXAS)green1 sentence2019Brinkman & Co. (Texas) Inc., 36 S.W.3d 903, 905 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (client company entitled to exclusive remedy defense against injury claim of temporary worker under borrowed servant doctrine); see also Phillips v. Am. | 1 | 1 |
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Mayesgreen1 sentence2018See id. ; see also Laverie v. Wetherbe , 517 S.W.3d 748 , 753 (Tex. 2017) (noting that the traditional scope-of-employment analysis in respondeat-superior cases "concerns only whether the employee is discharging the duties generally assigned to her" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) ). | 1 | 1 |
Laverie v. Wetherbegreen1 sentence2018See id. ; see also Laverie v. Wetherbe , 517 S.W.3d 748 , 753 (Tex. 2017) (noting that the traditional scope-of-employment analysis in respondeat-superior cases "concerns only whether the employee is discharging the duties generally assigned to her" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) ). | 1 | 1 |
Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivogreen1 sentence2012Olivo, 952 S.W.2d at 528 (Tex. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ranger County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Guin
green
2 sentences2009In doing so, the Ranger court made the following points: If, under the insurance policy, the insurer has a duty to defend the insured against third-party claims as well as the right to control the defense of these claims, then the insurer is the agent of the insured. In such a case, any negligence on the insurer's part would support a negligence claim by the insured against the insurer. The insurer's negligence duty is not limited to the Stowers duty; rather, this duty "extends to the full range of the agency relationship." See id. at 659-60 . 2009In doing so, the Ranger court made the following points: • If, under the insurance policy, the insurer has a duty to defend the insured against third-party claims as well as the right to control the defense of these claims, then the insurer is the agent of the insured. • In such a case, any negligence on the insurer’s part would support a negligence claim by the insured against the insurer. • The insurer’s negligence duty is not limited to the Stowers duty; rather, this duty “extends to the full range of the agency relationship.” See id. at 659-60 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hershel Helen McNamara, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Paul Tom McNamara v. Coy Blann Mathis
neutral
1 sentence2002The court of appeals acknowledged the right-to-control test as the proper legal standard to apply. 39 S.W.3d at 623 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Great Western Drilling Company v. Simmons
green
1 sentence1960Great Western Drilling Company v. Simmons, 302 S.W.2d 400, 403 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.