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.
9 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc.green2 sentences2010Chaney, Inc. , 56 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (reversing case because trial court failed to apply the automatic exclusion of rule 193.6 even when no attempt was made to show good cause, lack of surprise, or prejudice by non-answering party); see also Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc. , 714 S.W.2d 297 , 297–98 (Tex. 1986) (analyzing former rule). 2010Chaney, Inc., 56 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (reversing case because trial court failed to apply the automatic exclusion of rule 193.6 even when no attempt was made to show good cause, lack of surprise, or prejudice by non- answering party); see also Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 , 297–98 (Tex. 1986) (analyzing former rule). | 3 | 5 |
Beam v. A.H. Chaney, Inc.green2 sentences2010Chaney, Inc. , 56 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (reversing case because trial court failed to apply the automatic exclusion of rule 193.6 even when no attempt was made to show good cause, lack of surprise, or prejudice by non-answering party); see also Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc. , 714 S.W.2d 297 , 297–98 (Tex. 1986) (analyzing former rule). 2010Chaney, Inc., 56 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (reversing case because trial court failed to apply the automatic exclusion of rule 193.6 even when no attempt was made to show good cause, lack of surprise, or prejudice by non- answering party); see also Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 , 297–98 (Tex. 1986) (analyzing former rule). | 2 | 2 |
Boothe v. Hauslergreen1 sentence1994See Boothe v. Hausler , 766 S.W.2d 788, 789 (Tex. 1989) (describing rule 215(5) as a "strict rule" which only a showing of good cause can overcome); Morrow , 714 S.W.2d at 297-98 (asserting that a finding of good cause is the only manner in which the automatic exclusion under rule 215(5) can be avoided); Johnson v. Berg , 848 S.W.2d 345, 350 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1993, no writ) ("The trial court has discretion to determine whether the offering party has met his burden of showing good cause to admit the testimony, but it has no discretion to admit testimony excluded by the rule without a showing | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Berggreen1 sentence1994See Boothe v. Hausler , 766 S.W.2d 788, 789 (Tex. 1989) (describing rule 215(5) as a "strict rule" which only a showing of good cause can overcome); Morrow , 714 S.W.2d at 297-98 (asserting that a finding of good cause is the only manner in which the automatic exclusion under rule 215(5) can be avoided); Johnson v. Berg , 848 S.W.2d 345, 350 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1993, no writ) ("The trial court has discretion to determine whether the offering party has met his burden of showing good cause to admit the testimony, but it has no discretion to admit testimony excluded by the rule without a showing | 1 | 1 |
Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynumgreen1 sentence1994Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, 835 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.1992); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Henry S. Miller Company v. Bynum, 836 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Stellgreen1 sentence1994Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, 835 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.1992); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Henry S. Miller Company v. Bynum, 836 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Southwest Feed Yardsgreen1 sentence1994Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, 835 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.1992); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Henry S. Miller Company v. Bynum, 836 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
H.B. Zachry Co. v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences1995Id. 1993Id. | 2 | 1993–1995 |
Vingcard A.S. v. Merrimac Hospitality Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015The failure to respond to a request for the mental impressions and opinions of the expert is a complete failure to respond, which triggers the automatic exclusion under rule 193.6. $27,877, 331 S.W.3d at 120 ; VingCard, A.S., 59 S.W.3d at 856 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
$27,877.00 Current Money of the United States
green
1 sentence2015The failure to respond to a request for the mental impressions and opinions of the expert is a complete failure to respond, which triggers the automatic exclusion under rule 193.6. $27,877, 331 S.W.3d at 120 ; VingCard, A.S., 59 S.W.3d at 856 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Pope v. Davidson
green
1 sentence1995Pope, 849 S.W.2d at 919 ; Reveo, 873 S.W.2d at 396 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Cooper
green
1 sentence1995Pope, 849 S.W.2d at 919 ; Reveo, 873 S.W.2d at 396 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |