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.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
McLernon v. Dynegy, Inc.green2 sentences2013See McLernon v. Dynegy, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 315 , 323–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“If the defendant wishes to assert an affirmative defense to defeat summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim, he must urge the defense in his response and present sufficient evidence to create a fact issue on each element.”); City of The Colony v. N. Tex. Mun. 2013See McLernon v. Dynegy, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 315 , 323–24 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“If the defendant wishes to assert an affirmative defense to defeat summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim, he must urge the defense in his response and present sufficient evidence to create a fact issue on each element.”); City of The Colony v. N. Tex. Mun. | 2 | 2 |
Tanner v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.green1 sentence2013See Tanner, 289 S.W.3d at 830 . | 1 | 1 |
Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp.green1 sentence2005Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex.1993) (“A motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion.”); Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp., 867 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.1993) (“[A] summary judgment cannot be affirmed on grounds not expressly set out in the motion... .”).■ Dow’s reb-anee on chapter 95 in moving for summary judgment enabled the trial court to consider chapter 95 principles in ruling on Dow’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
McConnell v. Southside Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2005Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex.1993) (“A motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion.”); Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp., 867 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.1993) (“[A] summary judgment cannot be affirmed on grounds not expressly set out in the motion... .”).■ Dow’s reb-anee on chapter 95 in moving for summary judgment enabled the trial court to consider chapter 95 principles in ruling on Dow’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
Nesmith v. Bergergreen1 sentence2005See Nesmith v. Berger, 64 S.W.3d 110, 119 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. denied) (“A party that asks for a certain type of relief cannot complain on appeal if that relief is granted.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bright v. Dow Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences2002The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the summary judgment evidence raised a fact issue about the extent of supervisory control retained by Dow, and therefore a fact issue about the existence of a duty owed by Dow to Bright. 1 S.W.3d at 791 . 2002The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the summary judgment evidence raised a fact issue about the extent of “supervisory control” retained by Dow. 1 S.W.3d 787 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Dow Chemical Co. v. Bright
green
1 sentence2005Co. v. Bright, 89 S.W.3d 602 , 606-07 (Tex. 2002), the supreme court ruled that the premises owner had no right of control over its subcontractor and therefore owed no duty to the injured plaintiff. 5 Concerning the scaffolding from which Stewart fell, Dow’s motion demonstrated, through deposition testimony attached to the motion for summary judgment, that ISI had responsibility for erecting the scaffolding around the styrene unit and for inspecting it at the end of every shift. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.