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.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sealegreen2 sentences2024Both parties agree the violation of an OSHA standard does not establish negligence per se, but the standard is relevant in establishing “the cumulative wisdom of the industry on what is safe and what is unsafe.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Seale, 904 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ). 2024Both parties agree the violation of an OSHA standard does not establish negligence per se, but the standard is relevant in establishing “the cumulative wisdom of the industry on what is safe and what is unsafe.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Seale, 904 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Collingsworth General Hospital v. Hunnicuttgreen2 sentences2020As a result, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 23 Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986). 24 See Collingsworth, 988 S.W.2d at 708 (stating that the issue on review is whether evidence introduced before the trial court showed facts in existence at the time of the TWC’s decision that reasonably supported that decision). 25 Mercer, 701 S.W.2d at 831 . 13 _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on January 28, 2020 Opinion Delivered September 30, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ. 14 2020As a result, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 23 Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986). 24 See Collingsworth, 988 S.W.2d at 708 (stating that the issue on review is whether evidence introduced before the trial court showed facts in existence at the time of the TWC’s decision that reasonably supported that decision). 25 Mercer, 701 S.W.2d at 831 . 13 _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on January 28, 2020 Opinion Delivered September 30, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ. 14 | 1 | 1 |
Mercer v. Rossgreen2 sentences2020As a result, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 23 Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986). 24 See Collingsworth, 988 S.W.2d at 708 (stating that the issue on review is whether evidence introduced before the trial court showed facts in existence at the time of the TWC’s decision that reasonably supported that decision). 25 Mercer, 701 S.W.2d at 831 . 13 _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on January 28, 2020 Opinion Delivered September 30, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ. 14 2020As a result, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 23 Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986). 24 See Collingsworth, 988 S.W.2d at 708 (stating that the issue on review is whether evidence introduced before the trial court showed facts in existence at the time of the TWC’s decision that reasonably supported that decision). 25 Mercer, 701 S.W.2d at 831 . 13 _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on January 28, 2020 Opinion Delivered September 30, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ. 14 | 1 | 1 |
City of San Antonio v. Pollockgreen2 sentences2010Benzene is a known carcinogen." City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex.2009) (citing information from a report prepared for the City of San Antonio). "[T]he OSHA standard for maximum exposure to benzene in the work place is 1 ppm[.]" Id. at 819 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1028 (c)(1) (2008)). [4] In a footnote in its appellate brief, Goodyear notes that Dr. Kanojia's oral deposition ( see TEX.R. 2010Benzene is a known carcinogen." City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex.2009) (citing information from a report prepared for the City of San Antonio). "[T]he OSHA standard for maximum exposure to benzene in the work place is 1 ppm[.]" Id. at 819 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1028 (c)(1) (2008)). [4] In a footnote in its appellate brief, Goodyear notes that Dr. Kanojia's oral deposition ( see TEX.R. | 1 | 1 |
Knox v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2004App. P. 33.1(a) (providing that to preserve complaint for appellate review, party must make a timely and sufficiently specific request, objection, or motion). [21] See, e.g., Knox v. Taylor , 992 S.W.2d 40, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (holding complaint on appeal must comport with objection in trial court). [22] Although not mentioned on appeal, in their third filing attacking Estrin in the trial court, appellees argued that he should not be allowed to testify regarding the existence of an OSHA violation (1) because explaining the law to the jury is a function of the cour 2004App. P. 33.1(a) (providing that to preserve complaint for appellate review, party must make a timely and sufficiently specific request, objection, or motion). [21] See, e.g., Knox v. Taylor , 992 S.W.2d 40, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (holding complaint on appeal must comport with objection in trial court). [22] Although not mentioned on appeal, in their third filing attacking Estrin in the trial court, appellees argued that he should not be allowed to testify regarding the existence of an OSHA violation (1) because explaining the law to the jury is a function of the cour | 1 | 1 |
Anthony J. Melerine, Jr., Continental Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellant v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.red2 sentences2003OSHA is a safety code that neither enlarges nor diminishes “common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers or employees under any law with respect to injuries ... arising out of, or in the course of, employment.” Id. § 653(b)(4); see Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706, 709 (5th Cir.1981); Barrera v. E.I. 2003OSHA is a safety code that neither enlarges nor diminishes “common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers or employees under any law with respect to injuries ... arising out of, or in the course of, employment.” Id. § 653(b)(4); see Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706, 709 (5th Cir.1981); Barrera v. E.I. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richard J. Teal and Tina Teal v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company
green
2 sentences2008Therefore, because TCI had no duty to follow the OSHA regulation with regard to its own employees and the lockout/tagout procedure, there was no duty to extend to Hall. 26 … 728 F.2d at 804-05 . 27 … 63 F.3d at 477 . 28 … Id. at 478 . 10 Furthermore, in Texas, the Teal reasoning has only been considered persuasive with regard to extending the protection of 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(2) to all work site employees when “the OSHA violation is the result of a premise[s] defect or arises from an activity under the control of the general contractor.” 29 Hall failed to present any evidence of a premises def 2008Therefore, because TCI had no duty to follow the OSHA regulation with regard to its own employees and the lockout/tagout procedure, there was no duty to extend to Hall. 26 … 728 F.2d at 804-05 . 27 … 63 F.3d at 477 . 28 … Id. at 478 . 10 Furthermore, in Texas, the Teal reasoning has only been considered persuasive with regard to extending the protection of 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(2) to all work site employees when “the OSHA violation is the result of a premise[s] defect or arises from an activity under the control of the general contractor.” 29 Hall failed to present any evidence of a premises def | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ellis v. Chase Communications, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Therefore, because TCI had no duty to follow the OSHA regulation with regard to its own employees and the lockout/tagout procedure, there was no duty to extend to Hall. 26 … 728 F.2d at 804-05 . 27 … 63 F.3d at 477 . 28 … Id. at 478 . 10 Furthermore, in Texas, the Teal reasoning has only been considered persuasive with regard to extending the protection of 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(2) to all work site employees when “the OSHA violation is the result of a premise[s] defect or arises from an activity under the control of the general contractor.” 29 Hall failed to present any evidence of a premises def 2008Therefore, because TCI had no duty to follow the OSHA regulation with regard to its own employees and the lockout/tagout procedure, there was no duty to extend to Hall. 26 … 728 F.2d at 804-05 . 27 … 63 F.3d at 477 . 28 … Id. at 478 . 10 Furthermore, in Texas, the Teal reasoning has only been considered persuasive with regard to extending the protection of 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(2) to all work site employees when “the OSHA violation is the result of a premise[s] defect or arises from an activity under the control of the general contractor.” 29 Hall failed to present any evidence of a premises def | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.