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 1 courts 1990–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trusty v. Strayhorngreen2 sentences2020See generally Trusty v. Strayhorn, 87 S.W.3d 756, 764 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (“[A]ssuming the failure to timely designate a testifying expert would bar consideration of that expert’s affidavit as summary judgment proof, such a failure is a defect of form to which a party must object and obtain a ruling to preserve error.”). 2013See Parkway Dental Assocs., P.A. v. Ho & Huang Props., L.P., 391 S.W.3d 596 , 603–04 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (trial court did not implicitly grant movant‘s objections and exclude nonmovant‘s affidavit by granting summary judgment or by the language used in the summary judgment); see also Trusty v. Strayhorn, 87 S.W.3d 756, 764 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (―[A]ssuming the failure to timely designate a testifying expert would bar consideration of that expert‘s affidavit as summary judgment proof, such a failure is a defect of form to which a party must object and 5 | 4 | 4 |
Lection v. Dyllgreen2 sentences2002See Lection v. Dyll, 65 S.W.3d at 703 (characterizing as a defect in form a failure to file summary judgment proof within seven days of the hearing). 2002See Lection v. Dyll , 65 S.W.3d at 703 (characterizing as a defect in form a failure to file summary judgment proof within seven days of the hearing). | 2 | 2 |
Parkway Dental Associates, P.A., Poorang Pahlavan, H. Tram Nguyen and Shannon Presley v. Ho & Huang Properties, L.P. and SW Parkway Management, Inc.green1 sentence2013See Parkway Dental Assocs., P.A. v. Ho & Huang Props., L.P., 391 S.W.3d 596 , 603–04 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (trial court did not implicitly grant movant‘s objections and exclude nonmovant‘s affidavit by granting summary judgment or by the language used in the summary judgment); see also Trusty v. Strayhorn, 87 S.W.3d 756, 764 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (―[A]ssuming the failure to timely designate a testifying expert would bar consideration of that expert‘s affidavit as summary judgment proof, such a failure is a defect of form to which a party must object and 5 | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Hunter v. State, 468 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||