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 1997–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Enserch Corp.green2 sentences1997See Tirres v. El Paso Sand Prods., Inc., 808 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied); Parker v. Enserch Corp., 776 S.W.2d 638, 643 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.1990) (affirming that portion of appellate court’s judgment dealing with control of independent contractor). 1997See Tirres v. El Paso Sand Prods., Inc., 808 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied); Parker v. Enserch Corp., 776 S.W.2d 638, 643 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.1990) (affirming that portion of appellate court’s judgment dealing with control of independent contractor). | 2 | 2 |
Richard v. El Paso Sand Products, Inc.green2 sentences1997See Tirres v. El Paso Sand Prods., Inc., 808 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied); Parker v. Enserch Corp., 776 S.W.2d 638, 643 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.1990) (affirming that portion of appellate court’s judgment dealing with control of independent contractor). 1997See Tirres v. El Paso Sand Prods., Inc., 808 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied); Parker v. Enserch Corp., 776 S.W.2d 638, 643 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.1990) (affirming that portion of appellate court’s judgment dealing with control of independent contractor). | 2 | 2 |
Redinger v. Living, Inc.green2 sentences2024See Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1985) (holding general contractor liable for negligence in supervising subcontractor’s employee where general contractor 12 Reg’l Med. 1998Hoechst-Celanese Corp., 967 S.W.2d at 355 , citing Redinger, 689 S.W.2d at 418 . | 1 | 2 |
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Mendezgreen2 sentences2016The court began by noting the no-duty general rule, as well as the equally well-established Redinger exception to this no-duty general rule which may arise when the general contractor exercises “‘some control over the manner in which the independent contractor’s work is performed.’ ” See id. at 356. 1998Hoechst-Celanese Corp., 967 S.W.2d at 355 , citing Redinger, 689 S.W.2d at 418 . | 1 | 2 |
Bell v. VPSI, INC.green1 sentence2024Bell v. VPSI, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 706, 719 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parkergreen1 sentence2024See First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 224 (Tex. 2017) (assuming, without deciding, that Texas recognizes a cause of action for aiding and abetting because the parties had not raised or briefed the question). 13 (discussing negligent-control (i.e., Redinger) claim in the medical-malpractice context). | 1 | 1 |
Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2024Id.; see Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788, 791 (Tex. 2006) (discussing Redinger and explaining that “an employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor if the employer retains some control over the manner in which the contractor performs the work that causes the damage” (emphasis added)); Clayton W. 2024Id.; see Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788, 791 (Tex. 2006) (discussing Redinger and explaining that “an employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor if the employer retains some control over the manner in which the contractor performs the work that causes the damage” (emphasis added)); Clayton W. | 1 | 1 |
Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2021Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Enserch Corp. v. Parker
green
2 sentences1997See Tirres v. El Paso Sand Prods., Inc., 808 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied); Parker v. Enserch Corp., 776 S.W.2d 638, 643 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.1990) (affirming that portion of appellate court’s judgment dealing with control of independent contractor). 1997See Tirres v. El Paso Sand Prods., Inc., 808 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied); Parker v. Enserch Corp., 776 S.W.2d 638, 643 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex.1990) (affirming that portion of appellate court’s judgment dealing with control of independent contractor). | 2 | 1997–1997 |