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 1973–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burch, Benjamin Knightengreen1 sentence2017See Burch, 401 S.W.3d at 636 . | 1 | 1 |
Broders v. Heisegreen1 sentence2007See Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148, 153 (Tex.1996) (concluding emergency room physician, with no additional qualifications in neurosurgery, was not qualified to testify about whether patient’s head injury was survivable if she had received timely treatment from a neurosurgeon). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aghili v. Banks
green
1 sentence2024“When an attorney who represents a party is an affiant in support of a motion for summary judgment, he or she is a witness.” Id. at 817-18 ; see Mauze v. Curry, 861 -5- 04-22-00694-CV S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. 1993) (concluding counsel improperly testified as an expert witness in violation of rule 3.08 when, to defeat a summary judgment, he signed an affidavit opining that the defendant lawyer in a malpractice case was negligent and caused damages). 2. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palacios
green
1 sentence2015Under [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The only information relevant to the section 74.402, a person may qualify as an expert witness inquiry is within the four corners of the document. on the issue of whether the health care provider departed Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
American Cyanamid Co. v. Frankson
green
1 sentence1999Thereafter, Moss supplemented his discovery answers regarding expert witnesses with the designation of “[a]ny physician who has examined and/or treated Plaintiff [Moss].” NARCO argues that the use of this “catch-all” phrase was insufficient to identify Dr. Hasson as a testifying expert witness under this Courts holding in American Cyanamid Co. v. Frankson, 732 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Cowles v. State
green
2 sentences1984In Cowles, supra, the court stated: [w]hen an expert witness for the defense testifies that the accused was legally sane at the commission of the act, and the offense is not one where specific intent is an element of the crime, an offer of testimony by that witness as to the mental aberration or the emotional problems of the accused should be rejected at the guilt-innocence stage of the trial. 510 S.W.2d at 610 . 1984In Cowles, supra, the court stated: [w]hen an expert witness for the defense testifies that the accused was legally sane at the commission of the act, and the offense is not one where specific intent is an element of the crime, an offer of testimony by that witness as to the mental aberration or the emotional problems of the accused should be rejected at the guilt-innocence stage of the trial. 510 S.W.2d at 610 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Washington v. Texas
green
2 sentences1973I am . refusing to give testimony for the defense.” In Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 , relied on by appellant, the United States Supreme Court held the right under the Sixth Amendment of a defendant in a criminal case to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor applies to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment. 1973I am . refusing to give testimony for the defense.” In Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 , relied on by appellant, the United States Supreme Court held the right under the Sixth Amendment of a defendant in a criminal case to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor applies to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.