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.
8 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1936–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Southern Pacific Company v. Castrogreen2 sentences2015Yet these same opinions recognize the Restatement of Torts as the law of Texas on negligence per se, and the Restatement expressly states that the adoption of criminal statutes into tort law is a matter of judicial discretion: “The correct rule is ...: ‘The unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of conduct of the reasonable man, is negligence in itself.’ ” Southern Pac., 493 S.W.2d at 497 (emphasis added)(quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 288B (1965)); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 2 1998Yet these same opinions recognize the Restatement of Torts as the law of Texas on negligence per se, and the Restatement expressly states that the adoption of criminal statutes into tort law is a matter of judicial discre *305 tion: "The correct rule is ...: ‘The unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of conduct of the reasonable man, is negligence in itself.’ " Southern Pac., 493 S.W.2d at 497 (emphasis added)(quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 288B (1965)); see also Restatement (Second) of Tor | 3 | 4 |
Continental Oil Co. v. Simpsongreen2 sentences2003Cont'l Oil Co. v. Simpson , 604 S.W.2d 530, 534 (Tex. Civ. 1997As the Texas Supreme Court stated long ago, “[n]egligenee per se is a tort concept whereby a legislatively imposed standard of conduct is adopted by the civil courts as defining the conduct of a reasonably prudent person.” Carter v. William Sommerville & Son, Inc., 584 S.W.2d 274, 278 (Tex.1979); accord Southern Pacific Co. v. Castro, 493 S.W.2d 491, 497 (Tex.1973) (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts definition that negligence per se consists of an unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of co | 3 | 3 |
Marcelletti v. Bathanigreen2 sentences2015See Curran v. Walsh Jesuit High School, 99 Ohio App.3d 696 , 651 N.E.2d 1028 , 1030–31 (1995); Marcelletti v. Bathani, 198 Mich.App. 655 , 500 N.W.2d 124, 127 (1993). 2015See Curran v. Walsh Jesuit High School, 99 Ohio App.3d 696 , 651 N.E.2d 1028 , 1030–31 (1995); Marcelletti v. Bathani, 198 Mich.App. 655 , 500 N.W.2d 124, 127 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Curran v. Walsh Jesuit High Schoolgreen2 sentences2015See Curran v. Walsh Jesuit High School, 99 Ohio App.3d 696 , 651 N.E.2d 1028 , 1030–31 (1995); Marcelletti v. Bathani, 198 Mich.App. 655 , 500 N.W.2d 124, 127 (1993). 2015See Curran v. Walsh Jesuit High School, 99 Ohio App.3d 696 , 651 N.E.2d 1028 , 1030–31 (1995); Marcelletti v. Bathani, 198 Mich.App. 655 , 500 N.W.2d 124, 127 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. William Sommerville and Son, Inc.green1 sentence1997As the Texas Supreme Court stated long ago, “[n]egligenee per se is a tort concept whereby a legislatively imposed standard of conduct is adopted by the civil courts as defining the conduct of a reasonably prudent person.” Carter v. William Sommerville & Son, Inc., 584 S.W.2d 274, 278 (Tex.1979); accord Southern Pacific Co. v. Castro, 493 S.W.2d 491, 497 (Tex.1973) (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts definition that negligence per se consists of an unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of co | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. S.N.
green
1 sentence2019The correct rule, however, is: “The unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of conduct of the reasonable man, is negligence in itself.” Perry v. S.N., 973 S.W.2d 301 , 304 n.4 (Tex. 1998) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Whitmire v. State
green
1 sentence1936We take occasion here to call attention to our opinions in Whitmire v. State, 94 S. W. (2d) 742 ; Privett v. State, 98 S. W. (2d) 204 ; Kelly v. State, 98 S. W., 998 , and others following those named, in which we pointed out the averments necessary to charge a violation of certain provisions of the Texas Liquor Control Act, in what is called “Dry Area,” and approved the forms of some indictments. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Privitt v. State
green
1 sentence1936We take occasion here to call attention to our opinions in Whitmire v. State, 94 S. W. (2d) 742 ; Privett v. State, 98 S. W. (2d) 204 ; Kelly v. State, 98 S. W., 998 , and others following those named, in which we pointed out the averments necessary to charge a violation of certain provisions of the Texas Liquor Control Act, in what is called “Dry Area,” and approved the forms of some indictments. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.