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.
55 Texas opinions name it 5 courts 2004–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2026See id. at *7–8 (“The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence.” (citing Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004))). 2025See Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 159 S.W.3d at 908 n.5 (“The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evi- dence.”) (citing Skillern & Sons, Inc. v. Rosen, 359 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex. 1962)). 16 i. Saenz’s Alleged Testimony and Rupp’s Alleged Testimony in Pear- son’s Declaration Were Not Statements Against Interest under TEX. | 7 | 52 |
Skillern & Sons, Inc. v. Rosengreen2 sentences2025See Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 159 S.W.3d at 908 n.5 (“The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evi- dence.”) (citing Skillern & Sons, Inc. v. Rosen, 359 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex. 1962)). 16 i. Saenz’s Alleged Testimony and Rupp’s Alleged Testimony in Pear- son’s Declaration Were Not Statements Against Interest under TEX. 2014As a procedural matter, “[t] he proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence.” Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n. 5 (Tex.2004) (citing Skillern & Sons, Inc. v. Rosen, 359 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex.1962)); Ortega v. Cach, LLC, 396 S.W.3d 622, 629 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2013, no pet.). | 6 | 7 |
U.S. Renal Care, Inc. v. Jaafargreen2 sentences2011See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004) (“The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence.”); U.S. Renal Care, Inc. v. Jaafar, No. 04-09-00043-CV, 2011 WL 1158032, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2011, pet. filed) (“Once an opposing party objects to proffered expert testimony, the proponent of the witnesses’ testimony bears the burden to demonstrate its admissibility.”); Community Initiatives, Inc. v. Chase Bank of Tex., 153 S.W.3d 270, 28 2011See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez , 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004) ("The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence."); U.S. Renal Care, Inc. v. Jaafar , No. 04-09-00043-CV, 2011 WL 1158032, at *4 (Tex. App.--San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2011, pet. filed) ("Once an opposing party objects to proffered expert testimony, the proponent of the witnesses' testimony bears the burden to demonstrate its admissibility."); Community Initiatives, Inc. v. Chase Bank of Tex. , 153 S.W.3d 270 | 2 | 2 |
Community Initiatives, Inc. v. Chase Bank of Texasgreen2 sentences2011See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004) (“The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence.”); U.S. Renal Care, Inc. v. Jaafar, No. 04-09-00043-CV, 2011 WL 1158032, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2011, pet. filed) (“Once an opposing party objects to proffered expert testimony, the proponent of the witnesses’ testimony bears the burden to demonstrate its admissibility.”); Community Initiatives, Inc. v. Chase Bank of Tex., 153 S.W.3d 270, 28 2011See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez , 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004) ("The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence."); U.S. Renal Care, Inc. v. Jaafar , No. 04-09-00043-CV, 2011 WL 1158032, at *4 (Tex. App.--San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2011, pet. filed) ("Once an opposing party objects to proffered expert testimony, the proponent of the witnesses' testimony bears the burden to demonstrate its admissibility."); Community Initiatives, Inc. v. Chase Bank of Tex. , 153 S.W.3d 270 | 2 | 2 |
In Re CQTMgreen2 sentences2011See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004) (“The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence.”); U.S. Renal Care, Inc. v. Jaafar, No. 04-09-00043-CV, 2011 WL 1158032, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2011, pet. filed) (“Once an opposing party objects to proffered expert testimony, the proponent of the witnesses’ testimony bears the burden to demonstrate its admissibility.”); Community Initiatives, Inc. v. Chase Bank of Tex., 153 S.W.3d 270, 28 2011See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez , 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004) ("The proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence."); U.S. Renal Care, Inc. v. Jaafar , No. 04-09-00043-CV, 2011 WL 1158032, at *4 (Tex. App.--San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2011, pet. filed) ("Once an opposing party objects to proffered expert testimony, the proponent of the witnesses' testimony bears the burden to demonstrate its admissibility."); Community Initiatives, Inc. v. Chase Bank of Tex. , 153 S.W.3d 270 | 2 | 2 |
Simien v. Unifund CCR Partnersgreen2 sentences2019Simien v. Unifund CCR Partners, 321 S.W.3d 235, 240 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (citing Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004)). 2018Simien, 321 S.W.3d at 240 . | 1 | 4 |
Richard G. Ortega v. Cach, LLCgreen2 sentences2014Ortega, 396 S.W.3d at 629 . 2014As a procedural matter, “[t] he proponent of hearsay has the burden of showing that the testimony fits within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence.” Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 , 908 n. 5 (Tex.2004) (citing Skillern & Sons, Inc. v. Rosen, 359 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex.1962)); Ortega v. Cach, LLC, 396 S.W.3d 622, 629 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2013, no pet.). | 1 | 2 |
Ortega v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 907 (Tex.2004) (citing Skillern & Sons, Inc. v. Rosen, 359 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex.1962)); see also Ortega v. State, 126 S.W.3d 618, 620 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.