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.
49 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powellgreen2 sentences2023To satisfy the second prong of the TransAmerican test, “the punishment should fit the crime.” 811 S.W.2d at 917 . 2023To satisfy the second prong of the TransAmerican test, “the punishment should fit the crime.” 811 S.W.2d at 917 . | 16 | 24 |
Spohn Hospital v. Mayergreen2 sentences2024Sanctions “should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes,” such as assuring compliance with discovery, and the TransAmerican analysis “mandates that the trial court consider less stringent measures before settling on severe sanctions.” Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 839 ; Spohn Hosp., 104 S.W.3d at 883 . 2024Sanctions “should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes,” such as assuring compliance with discovery, and the TransAmerican analysis “mandates that the trial court consider less stringent measures before settling on severe sanctions.” Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 839 ; Spohn Hosp., 104 S.W.3d at 883 . | 3 | 6 |
Chrysler Corp. v. Honorable Robert Blackmongreen2 sentences2019Chrysler, 841 S.W.2d at 849 ; Taylor, 254 S.W.3d at 533 n.3. 2019Chrysler, 841 S.W.2d at 849 ; Taylor, 254 S.W.3d at 533 n.3. | 2 | 4 |
Cire v. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2024Sanctions “should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes,” such as assuring compliance with discovery, and the TransAmerican analysis “mandates that the trial court consider less stringent measures before settling on severe sanctions.” Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 839 ; Spohn Hosp., 104 S.W.3d at 883 . 2024Sanctions “should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes,” such as assuring compliance with discovery, and the TransAmerican analysis “mandates that the trial court consider less stringent measures before settling on severe sanctions.” Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 839 ; Spohn Hosp., 104 S.W.3d at 883 . | 2 | 3 |
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascalgreen2 sentences2015Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. v. letter to counsel of May 10, 1991, requesting alternative Abascal, 831 S.W.2d 559, 560 (Tex.App.--San Antonio sanction proposals. [11] 1992, orig. proceeding). 1992Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. v. Abascal, 831 S.W.2d 559, 560 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1992, orig. proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
American Flood Research, Inc. v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2008See Jones, 192 S.W.3d at 585 (citing TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991)). 2008See Jones, 192 S.W.3d at 585 (citing TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991)). | 2 | 2 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Butlergreen2 sentences2008See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Butler, 41 S.W.3d 816, 817-19 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.) (concluding that TransAmerican standard applies to sanctions imposed for violating *533 pretrial order); see also Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 812 (applying TransAmerican standard to sanctions imposed for violating pretrial order). 2008See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Butler , 41 S.W.3d 816, 817-19 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.) (concluding that TransAmerican standard applies to sanctions imposed for violating pretrial order); see also Bledsoe , 41 S.W.3d at 812 (applying TransAmerican standard to sanctions imposed for violating pretrial order). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Bledsoegreen2 sentences2008See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Butler, 41 S.W.3d 816, 817-19 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.) (concluding that TransAmerican standard applies to sanctions imposed for violating *533 pretrial order); see also Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 812 (applying TransAmerican standard to sanctions imposed for violating pretrial order). 2008See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Butler , 41 S.W.3d 816, 817-19 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.) (concluding that TransAmerican standard applies to sanctions imposed for violating pretrial order); see also Bledsoe , 41 S.W.3d at 812 (applying TransAmerican standard to sanctions imposed for violating pretrial order). | 2 | 2 |
In Re PMBgreen2 sentences2002Adkins Servs., Inc. v. Tisdale Co., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet. h.); In re P.M.B., 2 S.W.3d 618, 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); In re Striegler, 915 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. denied). [9] The refusal to permit a parent to call any fact witnesses in a termination proceeding eviscerates that parent's ability to present the merits of her defense. 2002Adkins Servs., Inc. v. Tisdale Co., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet. h.); In re P.M.B., 2 S.W.3d 618, 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); In re Striegler, 915 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. denied). [9] The refusal to permit a parent to call any fact witnesses in a termination proceeding eviscerates that parent's ability to present the merits of her defense. | 2 | 2 |
ADKINS SERVICES INC. v. Tisdale Co., Inc.green2 sentences2002Adkins Servs., Inc. v. Tisdale Co., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet. h.); In re P.M.B., 2 S.W.3d 618, 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); In re Striegler, 915 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. denied). [9] The refusal to permit a parent to call any fact witnesses in a termination proceeding eviscerates that parent's ability to present the merits of her defense. 2002Adkins Servs., Inc. v. Tisdale Co., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet. h.); In re P.M.B., 2 S.W.3d 618, 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); In re Striegler, 915 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. denied). [9] The refusal to permit a parent to call any fact witnesses in a termination proceeding eviscerates that parent's ability to present the merits of her defense. | 2 | 2 |
Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex, Inc.green2 sentences2020Petroleum Sols., 454 S.W.3d at 489 ; Brookshire Bros., 438 S.W.3d at 21–22. 2020Petroleum Sols., 454 S.W.3d at 489 ; Brookshire Bros., 438 S.W.3d at 21–22. | 1 | 2 |
Hamill v. Levelgreen1 sentence2019Namely, “[d]iscovery sanctions cannot be used to adjudicate the merits of a party’s claims or defenses unless a party’s hindrance of the discovery process justifies a presumption that its claims or defenses lack merit.” TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 918 . “[T]he court may not use death penalty sanctions to deny a litigant a decision on the merits of the case unless the court finds that the sanctioned party’s conduct ‘justifies a presumption that its claims or defenses lack merit.’” Hamill v. Level, 917 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex. 1996) (quoting TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 918 ). | 1 | 1 |
In re Harrisongreen1 sentence2019Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding); cf. Harrison, 557 S.W.3d at 125 (applying TransAmerican standard to sanctions regarding pretrial conference); Taylor, 254 S.W.3d at 532–33 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Otis Elevator Co. v. Parmeleegreen1 sentence2018Thus, we need not carve out an exception to the standard of review established by the supreme court in BMC for this appeal.8 See Villagomez v. 8 Appellants rely on Otis Elevator Co. v. Parmelee, a death-penalty sanctions appeal which concerned whether the trial court’s order complied with the TransAmerican requirement that the record show the trial court considered the availability of lesser sanctions or that lesser sanctions would not be sufficient to curb the abuse. 850 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Tex. 1993); TransAm. | 1 | 1 |
Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Garciagreen1 sentence2017Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia, 904 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief without prejudice to allow reconsideration in light of newly adopted *616 guidelines for apex depositions); Nat’l Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 207 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief to allow reconsideration in light of alterations to the controlling law); Borders v. Hartman, 814 S.W.2d 389, 389 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (denying request for relief from the trial court’s sanctions order without prejudice to allow the court to reconsider rulings in light of | 1 | 1 |
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascalgreen1 sentence2017Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia, 904 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief without prejudice to allow reconsideration in light of newly adopted *616 guidelines for apex depositions); Nat’l Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 207 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief to allow reconsideration in light of alterations to the controlling law); Borders v. Hartman, 814 S.W.2d 389, 389 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (denying request for relief from the trial court’s sanctions order without prejudice to allow the court to reconsider rulings in light of | 1 | 1 |
National Tank Co. v. Brothertongreen1 sentence2017Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia, 904 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief without prejudice to allow reconsideration in light of newly adopted *616 guidelines for apex depositions); Nat’l Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 207 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief to allow reconsideration in light of alterations to the controlling law); Borders v. Hartman, 814 S.W.2d 389, 389 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (denying request for relief from the trial court’s sanctions order without prejudice to allow the court to reconsider rulings in light of | 1 | 1 |
in Re Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLCgreen2 sentences2015See TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917-18 ; Noble Drilling, 449 S.W.3d at 631 (applying the TransAmerican standard to sanction striking affirmative defenses). 2015See TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917-18 ; Noble Drilling, 449 S.W.3d at 631 (applying the TransAmerican standard to sanction striking affirmative defenses). | 1 | 1 |
Low v. Henrygreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Graves v. Tomlinson, 329 S.W.3d 128 , 150–52 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (remanding because court could not determine which portion of sanctions award was attributable to non-discovery-related conduct and could not evaluate TransAmerican factors on record before it); see also Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 , 621–22 (Tex. 2007) (remanding “in the interest of justice” to allow parties to present evidence responsive to guidelines that court delineated in that opinion for sanctions imposed under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10). | 1 | 1 |
Graves v. Tomlinsongreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Graves v. Tomlinson, 329 S.W.3d 128 , 150–52 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (remanding because court could not determine which portion of sanctions award was attributable to non-discovery-related conduct and could not evaluate TransAmerican factors on record before it); see also Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 , 621–22 (Tex. 2007) (remanding “in the interest of justice” to allow parties to present evidence responsive to guidelines that court delineated in that opinion for sanctions imposed under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10). | 1 | 1 |
MacGregor v. Richgreen2 sentences2010See MacGregor v. Rich , 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). 2010See MacGregor v. Rich , 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
Butan Valley, N v. v. Smithgreen2 sentences2009See Butan Valley , 921 S.W.2d at 827, 831 . 2009See Butan Valley , 921 S.W.2d at 827, 831 . | 1 | 1 |
| Perez v. Murffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shook v. Gilmore & Tatge Manufacturing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lassiter v. Shavorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alvarado v. Farah Manufacturing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jampole v. Touchygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rahul K. Nath, M.D. v. Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine
green
2 sentences2024“The first prong of the TransAmerican test concerns the relationship between the conduct evinced and the sanction imposed and requires a direct nexus between the offensive conduct, the offender, and the sanction award.” Nath, 446 S.W.3d at 363 . 2024“The first prong of the TransAmerican test concerns the relationship between the conduct evinced and the sanction imposed and requires a direct nexus between the offensive conduct, the offender, and the sanction award.” Nath, 446 S.W.3d at 363 . | 2 | 2018–2024 |
In the Interest of Striegler
green
2 sentences2002Adkins Servs., Inc. v. Tisdale Co., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet. h.); In re P.M.B., 2 S.W.3d 618, 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); In re Striegler, 915 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. denied). [9] The refusal to permit a parent to call any fact witnesses in a termination proceeding eviscerates that parent's ability to present the merits of her defense. 2002Adkins Servs., Inc. v. Tisdale Co., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet. h.); In re P.M.B., 2 S.W.3d 618, 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); In re Striegler, 915 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. denied). [9] The refusal to permit a parent to call any fact witnesses in a termination proceeding eviscerates that parent's ability to present the merits of her defense. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Zhou Pei and Shaun White v. Nicholas White, Mark Moersen, Taurus Manufacturing Co. and Optimas Manufacturing Solutions
green
2 sentences2024See 35 TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917 ; Hernandez, 2019 WL 4068568 , at *4; White, 452 S.W.3d at 549 . 2024See 35 TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917 ; Hernandez, 2019 WL 4068568 , at *4; White, 452 S.W.3d at 549 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Jerry Aldridge
green
2 sentences2020Petroleum Sols., 454 S.W.3d at 489 ; Brookshire Bros., 438 S.W.3d at 21–22. 2020Petroleum Sols., 454 S.W.3d at 489 ; Brookshire Bros., 438 S.W.3d at 21–22. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Taylor v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2019Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding); cf. Harrison, 557 S.W.3d at 125 (applying TransAmerican standard to sanctions regarding pretrial conference); Taylor, 254 S.W.3d at 532–33 (same). 2019Chrysler, 841 S.W.2d at 849 ; Taylor, 254 S.W.3d at 533 n.3. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Villagomez v. Rockwood Specialties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Appellants also contend that “any suggestion that this Court is deference– bound to implied findings under the circumstances presented flies in the face of well over a century of Texas jurisprudence on proper evidentiary review.” 12 Rockwood Specialties, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 720 , 726–28 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied) (questioning BMC standard of review for implied findings in special appearance appeals but nevertheless applying legal sufficiency standard to facts); see also Norstrud, 2015 WL 4878716 , at *4 (declining to follow Villagomez to the extent it held that a trial court’s 2018Appellants also contend that “any suggestion that this Court is deference– bound to implied findings under the circumstances presented flies in the face of well over a century of Texas jurisprudence on proper evidentiary review.” 12 Rockwood Specialties, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 720 , 726–28 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied) (questioning BMC standard of review for implied findings in special appearance appeals but nevertheless applying legal sufficiency standard to facts); see also Norstrud, 2015 WL 4878716 , at *4 (declining to follow Villagomez to the extent it held that a trial court’s | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2015In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d at 718 . 2015In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d at 718 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Western Star Trucks US, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Appellee does not argue that another lesser sanction was tested and tried by the trial court. 7.) In re Western Star Trucks US, Inc., 112 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App. Eastland 2003, orig. proceeding), the court of appeals found: that orders to compel that precipitated the case-determinative sanctions were not a lesser sanction as contemplated under the TransAmerican analysis. 2015Appellee does not argue that another lesser sanction was tested and tried by the trial court. 7.) In re Western Star Trucks US, Inc., 112 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App. Eastland 2003, orig. proceeding), the court of appeals found: that orders to compel that precipitated the case-determinative sanctions were not a lesser sanction as contemplated under the TransAmerican analysis. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Williams v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.