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 1944–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romerogreen1 sentence2016See Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero, 456 S.W.3d 553, 560 (Tex. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Davila v. Sandersgreen1 sentence2002Since the adoption of the comparative negligence statute, the supreme court has abolished doctrines directed to the old choice between “total victory and total defeat for the injured plaintiff.” French v. Grigsby, 671 S.W.2d 867, 867 (Tex.1978) (per curiam) (abolishing “doctrine of last clear chance” and “discovered peril”); see Davila v. Sanders, 557 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex.1977) (per cu-riam) (abolishing “doctrine of imminent peril”). | 1 | 1 |
Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co.green1 sentence2002Since the adoption of the comparative negligence statute, the supreme court has abolished doctrines directed to the old choice between “total victory and total defeat for the injured plaintiff.” French v. Grigsby, 671 S.W.2d 867, 867 (Tex.1978) (per curiam) (abolishing “doctrine of last clear chance” and “discovered peril”); see Davila v. Sanders, 557 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex.1977) (per cu-riam) (abolishing “doctrine of imminent peril”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Company
green
2 sentences2003The Texas Supreme Court in French v. Grigsby , 571 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. 1978), held that the doctrine of last clear chance or discovered peril was subsumed with the advent of comparative negligence in Tex. Rev. 2003The Texas Supreme Court in French v. Grigsby, 571 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.1978), held that the doctrine of last clear chance or discovered peril was subsumed with the advent of comparative negligence in Tex.Rev.Civ. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Loftin v. Nolin
green
1 sentence1976Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 27-1763 to 27-1765 (Supp.1973); Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037 (Alaska 1975); Burns v. Ottati, 513 P.2d 469 (Colo.App.1973); Conn. Laws 1973, c. 622 Sec. 1(c); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973); Loftin v. Nolin, 86 So.2d 161 (Fla.1956); Cushman v. Perkins, 245 A.2d 846 (Me.1968). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Cushman v. Perkins
green
1 sentence1976Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 27-1763 to 27-1765 (Supp.1973); Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037 (Alaska 1975); Burns v. Ottati, 513 P.2d 469 (Colo.App.1973); Conn. Laws 1973, c. 622 Sec. 1(c); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973); Loftin v. Nolin, 86 So.2d 161 (Fla.1956); Cushman v. Perkins, 245 A.2d 846 (Me.1968). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Hoffman v. Jones
green
1 sentence1976Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 27-1763 to 27-1765 (Supp.1973); Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037 (Alaska 1975); Burns v. Ottati, 513 P.2d 469 (Colo.App.1973); Conn. Laws 1973, c. 622 Sec. 1(c); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973); Loftin v. Nolin, 86 So.2d 161 (Fla.1956); Cushman v. Perkins, 245 A.2d 846 (Me.1968). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Burns v. Ottati
green
1 sentence1976Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 27-1763 to 27-1765 (Supp.1973); Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037 (Alaska 1975); Burns v. Ottati, 513 P.2d 469 (Colo.App.1973); Conn. Laws 1973, c. 622 Sec. 1(c); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973); Loftin v. Nolin, 86 So.2d 161 (Fla.1956); Cushman v. Perkins, 245 A.2d 846 (Me.1968). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Kaatz v. State
green
1 sentence1976Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 27-1763 to 27-1765 (Supp.1973); Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037 (Alaska 1975); Burns v. Ottati, 513 P.2d 469 (Colo.App.1973); Conn. Laws 1973, c. 622 Sec. 1(c); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973); Loftin v. Nolin, 86 So.2d 161 (Fla.1956); Cushman v. Perkins, 245 A.2d 846 (Me.1968). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Raynor v. City of Arcata
green
2 sentences1952This situation might raise an issue of fact similar to that involved under the last clear chance doctrine ; the negligence of the operator of the emergency vehicle would then rest solely upon his arbitrary exercise of his privileges and not upon his disregard of the ordinary speed and right of way. “(9-12) Another view of the meaning and application of this expression is that it is similar to the charge of ‘wilful misconduct’ in the ordinary guest cases.” See also Raynor v. City of Areata, 11 Cal.2d 113 , 77 P.2d 1054 . 1952This situation might raise an issue of fact similar to that involved under the last clear chance doctrine ; the negligence of the operator of the emergency vehicle would then rest solely upon his arbitrary exercise of his privileges and not upon his disregard of the ordinary speed and right of way. “(9-12) Another view of the meaning and application of this expression is that it is similar to the charge of ‘wilful misconduct’ in the ordinary guest cases.” See also Raynor v. City of Areata, 11 Cal.2d 113 , 77 P.2d 1054 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Hutcheson v. Misenheimer
green
2 sentences1944“The doctrine of the last clear chance (or ‘discovered peril’ in this State) is one involving nice distinctions, often of a technical nature, and courts should be wary in extending its application.” Hutcheson v. Misenheimer, 169 Va. 511 , 194 S.E. 665, 667 . *509 We decline to extend the doctrine into the field of tort-feasors, either as a test of whether or not one of them only is liable to the plaintiff, or as a test to determine whether or not one of them is entitled to a judgment of full indemnity over against the other. 1944“The doctrine of the last clear chance (or ‘discovered peril’ in this State) is one involving nice distinctions, often of a technical nature, and courts should be wary in extending its application.” Hutcheson v. Misenheimer, 169 Va. 511 , 194 S.E. 665, 667 . *509 We decline to extend the doctrine into the field of tort-feasors, either as a test of whether or not one of them only is liable to the plaintiff, or as a test to determine whether or not one of them is entitled to a judgment of full indemnity over against the other. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.