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 2 courts 2015–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v. Rubiogreen2 sentences2015As we recognized in Diversicare, the duty of care that health care providers owe to their patients is fundamentally different from the duty of care owed to, say, employees or visitors. 185 S.W.3d at 850-51 (“The obligation of a health care facility to its patients is not the same as the general duty a premises owner owes to invitees.”). 2015As we recognized in Diversicare, the duty of care that health care providers owe to their patients is fundamentally different from the duty of care owed to, say, employees or visitors. 185 S.W.3d at 850–51 (“The obligation of a health care facility to its patients is not the same as the general duty a premises owner owes to invitees.”). | 1 | 2 |
Demarsenese Cage v. the Methodist Hospitalgreen1 sentence2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
Lezlea Ross v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospitalgreen1 sentence2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Milner v. State
green
2 sentences2022These circumstances demonstrate that a variety of factors, particularly the third and fifth factors under article 17.15 and the fourth and seventh factors given by Rubac, support the trial court’s bail amount.6 Although the fact appellant was previously able to be released on a total of $205,000 in bail could support a bail reduction pursuant to the sixth Rubac factor, see Milner, 263 S.W.3d at 151 , as is clear from the above discussion, the trial court’s selected bail amount finds support in a variety of factors. 2022These circumstances demonstrate that a variety of factors, particularly the third and fifth factors under article 17.15 and the fourth and seventh factors given by Rubac, support the trial court’s bail amount.6 Although the fact appellant was previously able to be released on a total of $205,000 in bail could support a bail reduction pursuant to the sixth Rubac factor, see Milner, 263 S.W.3d at 151 , as is clear from the above discussion, the trial court’s selected bail amount finds support in a variety of factors. | 4 | 2022–2022 |
Gill, Ex Parte Tommy John
green
1 sentence2016Grill, 413 S.W.3d at 428-30 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.