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.
12 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Jones v. State, 845 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.App.-Hous *747 ton [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). 1997See Jones v. State, 845 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. refd). | 2 | 2 |
Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Authoritygreen2 sentences2015Corp. v. Hornburg, 20 S.W.3d 741 , 758 n.12 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000, no pet.); Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 811 S.W.2d 147, 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (“While proximate cause must be proven in a tort action, it is not the causal standard applied in a suit for damages for breach of contract.”); see Michol O’Connor, O’CONNOR’S TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION, ch. 5-B, §2.1 (2015 ed.). 2000Winograd, 811 S.W.2d at 156 . | 1 | 3 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2018We note that, to show error in the trial court’s grant of a State’s challenge for cause, Appellant would have to “demonstrate one of two things: (1) the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard in sustaining the challenge, or (2) the trial judge abused [his] discretion in applying the correct legal standard.” Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 388 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Coastal Transport Co. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp.green1 sentence2007Petroleum Corp ., 136 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 2004) (stating that even unobjected‑to conclusory testimony does not raise a fact issue). [12] Furthermore, the evidence reflects that Phillips had a problem in the past with having so many alarms that the operators did not take the alarms seriously. [13] The Phillips team identified the following A causal factors @ : (1) disabling of the Safety Valve, (2) Phillips = s failure to fully take into account the increased likelihood of popcorn polymerization after 1997, when the alumina dryers were added to the K-Resin process, (3) Phillips = s allowing u | 1 | 1 |
Guthrie v. Sinclair Refining Companygreen1 sentence1991Clair Refining Co., 320 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1959, writ ref’d n.r.e.), it is not the causal standard applied in a suit for damages in contract. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abraxas Petroleum Corp. v. Hornburg
green
2 sentences2015Corp. v. Hornburg, 20 S.W.3d 741 , 758 n.12 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000, no pet.); Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 811 S.W.2d 147, 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (“While proximate cause must be proven in a tort action, it is not the causal standard applied in a suit for damages for breach of contract.”); see Michol O’Connor, O’CONNOR’S TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION, ch. 5-B, §2.1 (2015 ed.). 2008Abraxas Petroleum Corp. v. Hornburg, 20 S.W.3d 741 , 758 n.12 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000, no pet.) Rather, actual damages are recoverable only if a plaintiff shows that the injury complained of was the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s breach. | 3 | 2005–2015 |
Bowie Memorial Hospital v. Wright
green
1 sentence2013The court concluded that this statement was inadequate to address causation; the court stated that “by not fleshing out how appellee’s failure to monitor Gray’s extremities caused her injury, the report does not convincingly tie the alleged departure from the standard of care to specific facts of the case.” Id. at 860 (citing Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 53 ). 8 The the December 21, 2012 report’s causal analysis is similarly deficient. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gray v. CHCA Bayshore L.P.
green
2 sentences2013The expert report in Gray provided the following causal analysis: “The failure to monitor and detect the malpositioned left knee resulted in a dislocated left patella, severe pain and suffering, and subsequent medical treatment.” Id. at 858 . 2013The court concluded that this statement was inadequate to address causation; the court stated that “by not fleshing out how appellee’s failure to monitor Gray’s extremities caused her injury, the report does not convincingly tie the alleged departure from the standard of care to specific facts of the case.” Id. at 860 (citing Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 53 ). 8 The the December 21, 2012 report’s causal analysis is similarly deficient. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez
green
2 sentences1995The Court's approach is not without precedent, see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.1991); however, I believe this expansive view of cause-in-fact obscures a proper causal analysis, and that this case presents an opportunity to clarify that analysis. 1995The Court’s approach is not without precedent, see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.1991); however, I believe this expansive view of cause-in-fact obscures a proper causal analysis, and that this case presents an opportunity to clarify that analysis. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.