82 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2024 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences2024“Failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.” Id. (quoting Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding)). 2024The Texas Supreme Court concluded in Remington Arms that “the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct[,]” but “if pretrial discovery abuse is not revealed until after the trial has begun, or even after trial, a party cannot be said to have waived a claim for sanctions.” 850 S.W.2d at 170 . | 36 | 49 |
Finlay v. Olivegreen2 sentences2016As previously discussed, “[s]anctions for alleged violations known to movants before trial are waived if a hearing and ruling are not secured pretrial.” Finlay, 77 S.W.3d at 525 ; see generally Remington Arms, 850 S.W.2d at 170 (holding that “the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct”). 2012See Remington, 850 S.W.2d at 170 (holding that “failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct”); Finlay, 77 S.W.3d at 526 (noting that the postponement of “rulings on completed pretrial [discovery] matters, where trial pleadings in the case are not at issue, and where trial testimony has no bearing on the sanctions dispute, would be to violate the very essence of Remington Arms ”). | 5 | 6 |
Meyer v. Catheygreen2 sentences2021See Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327, 333 (Tex. 2005) (“[T]he failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.”) (quoting Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993)); see also WWW.URBAN.INC. v. 10 The trial court reset the trial date from December 13. 14 Drummond, 508 S.W.3d 657, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Graves v. Tomlinson, 329 S.W.3d 128, 150 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). 2010Meyer v. Cathey , 167 S.W.3d 327, 333 (Tex. 2005); Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell , 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993) (“[T]he failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.”). | 5 | 5 |
Emerson v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Springer v. State, 940 S.W.2d 322, 323-24 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.); Emerson v. State, 756 S.W.2d 364, 369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d). 12 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing Davis. 2008See Springer v. State, 940 S.W.2d 322, 323-24 (Tex.App.Dallas 1997, no pet.); Emerson v. State, 756 S.W.2d 364, 369 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 3 |
Springer v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Springer v. State, 940 S.W.2d 322, 323-24 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.); Emerson v. State, 756 S.W.2d 364, 369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d). 12 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing Davis. 2008See Springer v. State, 940 S.W.2d 322, 323-24 (Tex.App.Dallas 1997, no pet.); Emerson v. State, 756 S.W.2d 364, 369 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 3 |
Martin v. Commercial Metals Co.green2 sentences2005The Texas Supreme Court has directed that “the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.” Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex.1993); Martin v. Commercial Metals Co., 138 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). 2005The Texas Supreme Court has directed that "the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct." Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell , 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993); Martin v. Commercial Metals Co. , 138 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
Roberts v. Whitfillgreen2 sentences2014See Roberts v. Whitfill, 191 S.W.3d 348, 361 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.) (noting concern with giving spoliation instruction because plaintiff “did not pursue her motion to compel and obtain an order requiring [defendant] to produce” data that was the subject of instruction); see also Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex.1993) (“the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct”). 2013E.g., In re City of Houston, No. 14-12-00861-CV, 2013 WL 85097 , at *1 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 4, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Roberts v. Whitfill, 191 S.W.3d 348 , 361 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.); see also Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex.1993) (“the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct”); McKinney v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. | 2 | 3 |
McKinney v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburghgreen2 sentences2013Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 772 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex. 1989) (the “responsibility for obtaining a hearing on discovery matters [is] on the party requesting discovery”). 2013Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 772 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex.1989) (the “responsibility for obtaining a hearing on discovery matters [is] on the party requesting discovery”). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 431 (Tex. Crim. 2012Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 431 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Guidry v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 153 (Tex. Crim. 2007See Guidry v. State , 9 S.W. 3d 133 , 153 ( Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Cathey v. Meyergreen2 sentences2004Cathey v. Meyer , 115 S.W.3d 644, 672 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, pet. filed) (quoting Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell , 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993)); Finlay v. Olive , 77 S.W.3d 520, 526 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). 2004Cathey v. Meyer , 115 S.W.3d 644, 672 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, pet. filed) (quoting Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell , 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993)); Finlay v. Olive , 77 S.W.3d 520, 526 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Olney Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Farmers Market of Odessa, Inc.green2 sentences2003Olney Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Farmers Market of Odessa, Inc., 764 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1989, writ denied); 3 Roy W. 2003Olney Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Farmers Market of Odessa, Inc., 764 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1989, writ denied); 3 Roy W. | 2 | 2 |
Mandell v. Mandellgreen2 sentences2020See Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993) (“[T]he failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.”); Mandell v. Mandell, 214 S.W.3d 682 , 691– 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (objecting party “waived any complaint about the Estate’s failure to supplement discovery responses by first refusing the Estate’s offer of the documents” and by failing to obtain ruling compelling discovery prior to start of trial); see also Safeco Surety v. 2012Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex.1993) ("the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct"); Mandell v. Mandell, 214 S.W.3d 682, 691-92 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (holding that appellant who failed to move for the exclusion of evidence until the last business day before a summary-judgment hearing waived his complaint that the summary-judgment motion was based on evidence not produced in response to discovery). | 1 | 3 |
Corona v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.green1 sentence2023Accordingly, “[t]he Texas Supreme Court has held ‘the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.’” Corona v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 245 S.W.3d 75, 84 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied) (quoting Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding)). | 1 | 1 |
Graves v. Tomlinsongreen1 sentence2021See Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327, 333 (Tex. 2005) (“[T]he failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.”) (quoting Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993)); see also WWW.URBAN.INC. v. 10 The trial court reset the trial date from December 13. 14 Drummond, 508 S.W.3d 657, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Graves v. Tomlinson, 329 S.W.3d 128, 150 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
www.urban.inc. v. Chris Drummondgreen1 sentence2021See Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327, 333 (Tex. 2005) (“[T]he failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.”) (quoting Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993)); see also WWW.URBAN.INC. v. 10 The trial court reset the trial date from December 13. 14 Drummond, 508 S.W.3d 657, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Graves v. Tomlinson, 329 S.W.3d 128, 150 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Arkoma Basin Exploration Co. v. FMF Associates 1990-A, Ltd.green1 sentence2015See Arkoma Basin Exploration 17 See Appellant’s Opening Brief at pp. 37-38. 32 Co. v. FMF Assocs. 1990-A, Ltd., 249 S.W.3d 380, 387 (Tex. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Leza v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344, 358 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cal-Tex Lumber Co., Inc. v. Owens Handle Co., Inc.green1 sentence2013See Cal-Tex Lumber Co. v. Owens Handle Co., 989 S.W.2d 802, 813 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Jernigan v. Langleygreen1 sentence2007"Waiver is defined as 'an intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right.'" Jernigan v. Langley , 111 S.W.3d 153, 156 (Tex. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Trevino v. Ortegagreen1 sentence2006The failure to pursue the motion to compel to a ruling raises the issue whether a sanction such as a spoliation instruction was warranted; "the failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.” Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex.1993); see generally Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 958-61 (Tex.1998) (Baker, J., concurring) (discussing various sanctions for evidence spoliation, including giving jury spoliation instruction). | 1 | 1 |
Lettieri v. Lettierigreen1 sentence2001Lettieri v. Lettieri , 654 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1983, writ dism'd). | 1 | 1 |
Beck v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Beck v. State , 719 S.W.2d 205, 211-14 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. O'Nealgreen1 sentence1997Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex.1993); Smith v. O’Neal, 850 S.W.2d 797, 799 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Hallett v. Houston Northwest Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hausler v. Hauslergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Boulware v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| O. R. Mitchell Motors, Inc. v. Bellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Richolsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wise v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1987Id. 359 S.W.2d at 881 . 1987Id. 359 S.W.2d at 881 . | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Ramirez v. Acker
green
2 sentences1957Ramirez v. Acker, 134 Tex. 647 , 138 S.W.2d 1054 ; Texas & N. O. 1957Ramirez v. Acker, 134 Tex. 647 , 138 S.W.2d 1054 ; Texas & N. O. | 2 | 1943–1957 |
Lewis v. Western Waste Industries
green
1 sentence2024“Failure to obtain a pretrial ruling on discovery disputes that exist before commencement of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sanctions based on that conduct.” Id. (quoting Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Teal v. State
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| DeGarmo v. State red | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Escamilla v. Broome County Government green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
DeGarmo v. Texas
green
2 sentences1996In McWhorter , we held that, based upon the pronouncements in McGlothlin v. State, 896 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 219 , 133 L.Ed.2d 150 (1995), and DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 973 , 106 S.Ct. 337 , 88 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985), a defendant’s admission on the witness stand, during the guilt/innocenee phase of a trial, that he possessed cocaine resulted in the waiver of any error that occurred during that phase of the trial. 1996In McWhorter , we held that, based upon the pronouncements in McGlothlin v. State, 896 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 219 , 133 L.Ed.2d 150 (1995), and DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 973 , 106 S.Ct. 337 , 88 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985), a defendant’s admission on the witness stand, during the guilt/innocenee phase of a trial, that he possessed cocaine resulted in the waiver of any error that occurred during that phase of the trial. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McGlothlin v. State
green
1 sentence1996In McWhorter , we held that, based upon the pronouncements in McGlothlin v. State, 896 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 219 , 133 L.Ed.2d 150 (1995), and DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 973 , 106 S.Ct. 337 , 88 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985), a defendant’s admission on the witness stand, during the guilt/innocenee phase of a trial, that he possessed cocaine resulted in the waiver of any error that occurred during that phase of the trial. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| White v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Hinkle v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Lewis v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Granviel v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Washington v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Brown v. Estelle green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Van Dyke v. Van Dyke green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Ex Parte Ewing green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Massachusetts Bond. & Ins. Co. v. Orkin Exterm. Co. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Miller v. Fenner, Beane & Ungerleider green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Citizens' Nat. Bank of Brownwood v. Texas Compress Co. green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Headley v. Obenchain neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Pullman Company v. Vanderhoeven green | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Legate v. Legate green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| State Ex Rel. Wood v. Deaton green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| Kennedy v. Bender green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.