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 1 courts 2006–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haddock v. Arnspigergreen2 sentences2019The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is a “rule of evidence by which negligence may be inferred by the injury; it is not a separate cause of action from negligence.” Haddock v. Ampsiger, 793 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Tex. 1990). 2014Citing a single case, Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex.1990), Osuna asserts “it is well settled that even in instances where the Court determines that a claim is one classified as a HCLC, an expert is not needed to ‘establish a breach of a medical duty where the departure is plainly within the common knowledge of laymen.’ ” The case relied upon by Osuna concerns the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. | 6 | 6 |
Shaun T. Mian Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.green1 sentence2011Mian Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 237 S.W.3d 851, 857 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied), citing Ford Motor Co. v. Miles, 141 S.W.3d 309, 315 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied) and Simms v. Southwest Texas Methodist Hosp., 535 S.W.2d 192, 197 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1976, writ refd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Milesgreen1 sentence2011Mian Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 237 S.W.3d 851, 857 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied), citing Ford Motor Co. v. Miles, 141 S.W.3d 309, 315 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied) and Simms v. Southwest Texas Methodist Hosp., 535 S.W.2d 192, 197 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1976, writ refd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Simms v. Southwest Texas Methodist Hospitalgreen1 sentence2011Mian Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 237 S.W.3d 851, 857 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied), citing Ford Motor Co. v. Miles, 141 S.W.3d 309, 315 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied) and Simms v. Southwest Texas Methodist Hosp., 535 S.W.2d 192, 197 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1976, writ refd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgwaygreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgeway , 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004) (setting out that, with respect to inferences of control only, the product must be new or otherwise unmodified) ; Parsons , 85 S.W.3d at 332-33 (holding that to be entitled to a res ipsa loquitor presumption, the plaintiff must establish that the product was unaltered since the time it left the manufacturer's control at the initial sale); Doyle Wilson Homebuilder, Inc. v. Pickens , 996 S.W.2d 387, 397 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, pet. dism'd by agr.). | 1 | 1 |
Doyle Wilson Homebuilder, Inc. v. Pickensgreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgeway , 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004) (setting out that, with respect to inferences of control only, the product must be new or otherwise unmodified) ; Parsons , 85 S.W.3d at 332-33 (holding that to be entitled to a res ipsa loquitor presumption, the plaintiff must establish that the product was unaltered since the time it left the manufacturer's control at the initial sale); Doyle Wilson Homebuilder, Inc. v. Pickens , 996 S.W.2d 387, 397 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, pet. dism'd by agr.). | 1 | 1 |
Parsons v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2006See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgeway , 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004) (setting out that, with respect to inferences of control only, the product must be new or otherwise unmodified) ; Parsons , 85 S.W.3d at 332-33 (holding that to be entitled to a res ipsa loquitor presumption, the plaintiff must establish that the product was unaltered since the time it left the manufacturer's control at the initial sale); Doyle Wilson Homebuilder, Inc. v. Pickens , 996 S.W.2d 387, 397 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, pet. dism'd by agr.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.