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 3 courts 2002–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowie Memorial Hospital v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 833 substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment. rather than the “reasonable medical probability”—that See Flores v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 , 41 Barbara might have had a better outcome, the court of (Tex.1989). appeals concluded that the report’s adequacy should not turn “solely upon the claimant’s failure to use magical Here, the parties do not dispute that the expert report words like ‘reasonable probability.’ ” 48 S.W.3d at 447 . fairly summarize 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 833 substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment. rather than the “reasonable medical probability”—that See Flores v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 , 41 Barbara might have had a better outcome, the court of (Tex.1989). appeals concluded that the report’s adequacy should not turn “solely upon the claimant’s failure to use magical Here, the parties do not dispute that the expert report words like ‘reasonable probability.’ ” 48 S.W.3d at 447 . fairly summarize | 3 | 5 |
Wright v. Bowie Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 833 substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment. rather than the “reasonable medical probability”—that See Flores v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 , 41 Barbara might have had a better outcome, the court of (Tex.1989). appeals concluded that the report’s adequacy should not turn “solely upon the claimant’s failure to use magical Here, the parties do not dispute that the expert report words like ‘reasonable probability.’ ” 48 S.W.3d at 447 . fairly summarize 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 833 substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment. rather than the “reasonable medical probability”—that See Flores v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 , 41 Barbara might have had a better outcome, the court of (Tex.1989). appeals concluded that the report’s adequacy should not turn “solely upon the claimant’s failure to use magical Here, the parties do not dispute that the expert report words like ‘reasonable probability.’ ” 48 S.W.3d at 447 . fairly summarize | 2 | 5 |
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palaciosgreen2 sentences2020Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 879 ; see generally Henry, 375 S.W.3d at 535 (stating Texas Supreme Court “has encouraged trial courts to liberally construe expert reports in favor of plaintiffs”). 2015Id. at § 74.351(r)(6); Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 879 . | 1 | 5 |
United States v. Yidagreen1 sentence2024See United States v. Yida, 498 F.3d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[Federal] Rule 804(b)(1) [the former testimony exception] implements the command of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
Tommy Henry v. Dr. Chad Kellygreen1 sentence2020Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 879 ; see generally Henry, 375 S.W.3d at 535 (stating Texas Supreme Court “has encouraged trial courts to liberally construe expert reports in favor of plaintiffs”). | 1 | 1 |
Baty v. Olga Futrell, Crna, & Complete Anesthesia Care, P.C.green1 sentence2019See Baty v. Futrell, 543 S.W.3d 689, 693-94 (Tex. 2018); see also IPH Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Ramsey, No. 01-12-00390-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2985 , at *37-39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (trial court could have reasonably concluded expert report was a “good-faith effort” where report alleged failure to recognize and respond to severe allergic reaction). | 1 | 1 |
Jelinek v. Casasgreen2 sentences2014CODE ANN. § 74.351(c). 8 See id. § 74.351(l). 9 Sanchez, 378 S.W.3d at 588 . 10 Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam). 11 Ortiz, 378 S.W.3d at 671 ; see also Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526, 539 (Tex. 2010) (stating that conclusory reports do not fulfill the two purposes of the good-faith-effort test). 12 Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52 . 13 Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539–40. –4– or intended.14 We review a causation opinion in the context of the entire report when assessing its sufficiency.15 Our standard of review is abuse of discretion.16 A trial judge has no 2014CODE ANN. § 74.351(c). 8 See id. § 74.351(l). 9 Sanchez, 378 S.W.3d at 588 . 10 Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam). 11 Ortiz, 378 S.W.3d at 671 ; see also Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526, 539 (Tex. 2010) (stating that conclusory reports do not fulfill the two purposes of the good-faith-effort test). 12 Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52 . 13 Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539–40. –4– or intended.14 We review a causation opinion in the context of the entire report when assessing its sufficiency.15 Our standard of review is abuse of discretion.16 A trial judge has no | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals
green
2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 833 substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment. rather than the “reasonable medical probability”—that See Flores v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 , 41 Barbara might have had a better outcome, the court of (Tex.1989). appeals concluded that the report’s adequacy should not turn “solely upon the claimant’s failure to use magical Here, the parties do not dispute that the expert report words like ‘reasonable probability.’ ” 48 S.W.3d at 447 . fairly summarize 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 833 substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment. rather than the “reasonable medical probability”—that See Flores v. Fourth Ct. of Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 , 41 Barbara might have had a better outcome, the court of (Tex.1989). appeals concluded that the report’s adequacy should not turn “solely upon the claimant’s failure to use magical Here, the parties do not dispute that the expert report words like ‘reasonable probability.’ ” 48 S.W.3d at 447 . fairly summarize | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Sanchez v. Martin
green
1 sentence2014CODE ANN. § 74.351(c). 8 See id. § 74.351(l). 9 Sanchez, 378 S.W.3d at 588 . 10 Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam). 11 Ortiz, 378 S.W.3d at 671 ; see also Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526, 539 (Tex. 2010) (stating that conclusory reports do not fulfill the two purposes of the good-faith-effort test). 12 Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52 . 13 Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539–40. –4– or intended.14 We review a causation opinion in the context of the entire report when assessing its sufficiency.15 Our standard of review is abuse of discretion.16 A trial judge has no | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ortiz v. Patterson
green
1 sentence2014CODE ANN. § 74.351(c). 8 See id. § 74.351(l). 9 Sanchez, 378 S.W.3d at 588 . 10 Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam). 11 Ortiz, 378 S.W.3d at 671 ; see also Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526, 539 (Tex. 2010) (stating that conclusory reports do not fulfill the two purposes of the good-faith-effort test). 12 Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52 . 13 Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539–40. –4– or intended.14 We review a causation opinion in the context of the entire report when assessing its sufficiency.15 Our standard of review is abuse of discretion.16 A trial judge has no | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hutchinson v. Montemayor
green
1 sentence2005See Bowie Mem’l Hosp ., 79 S.W.3d at 53 (citing Palacios , 46 S.W.3d at 879 ); Hutchinson , 144 S.W.3d at 617 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.