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 2 courts 1952–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanders v. Naes Central, Inc.green1 sentence2018See Sanders , 498 S.W.3d at 259 ("The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not available to fix responsibility when any one of multiple defendants, wholly independent of each other, might have been responsible for the injury."); Trejo , 185 S.W.3d at 48 ("The doctrine of res [ ispa ] loquitur applies only where the instrumentalities causing the injury are shown to have been wholly in the care of the defendant and not to have been meddled with by the person injured or third parties."); Lucas v. Titus County Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Trejo v. Laredo National Bankgreen1 sentence2018See Sanders , 498 S.W.3d at 259 ("The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not available to fix responsibility when any one of multiple defendants, wholly independent of each other, might have been responsible for the injury."); Trejo , 185 S.W.3d at 48 ("The doctrine of res [ ispa ] loquitur applies only where the instrumentalities causing the injury are shown to have been wholly in the care of the defendant and not to have been meddled with by the person injured or third parties."); Lucas v. Titus County Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Matthews Const. Co., Inc. v. Rosengreen1 sentence2015See Matthews Const, Co., Inc. v. Rosen, 796 S.W.2d 692 , 694 n. 2 (Tex.1990); Sommers v. Concepcion, 20 S. W-3d- 27, 37 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Weiman v. Addicks-Fairbanks Road Sand Co.green1 sentence2008Weiman v. Addicks-Fairbanks Road Sand Co., 846 S.W.2d 414, 418 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Westworth Village, Texas v. City of White Settlement, Texas
green
1 sentence2021And because A.K.’s pleadings affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction that cannot be fixed by repleading, see City of Westworth Vill., 558 S.W.3d at 239–40, we render judgment dismissing her § 1983 claim. /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Delivered: April 22, 2021 18 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Graham v. Fed-X, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Dist./Titus Mem'l Hosp. , 964 S.W.2d 144 , 156 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.) (rejecting the application of the res ipsa doctrine "because the chair was in a public waiting area, [and] it [was] possible that someone other than the Hospital broke the recliner before [the plaintiff was injured]"); Graham v. Fed-X, Inc. , 384 S.W.2d 785 , 787 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lucas v. Titus County Hospital District
green
1 sentence2018Dist./Titus Mem'l Hosp. , 964 S.W.2d 144 , 156 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.) (rejecting the application of the res ipsa doctrine "because the chair was in a public waiting area, [and] it [was] possible that someone other than the Hospital broke the recliner before [the plaintiff was injured]"); Graham v. Fed-X, Inc. , 384 S.W.2d 785 , 787 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Texas Department of Insurance v. State Farm Lloyds
green
1 sentence2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Texas Dept. of Ins. v. State Farm Lloyds, 260 S.W.3d 233 (2008) supervision on this ground and, because the department did Here, as in his 2004 rate supervision order, the commissioner not appeal the judgment, the department is bound by it. concluded that “[f]rom January 13, 2003 to the present State Farm Lloyds has charged rates that were determined by the [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] The general doctrine of res Commissioner to be excessive and in violation of Texas judicata encompasses two distinct categories: (1) res judicata, law, and which should | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. Ex Rel. Sunbelt Federal Savings
green
1 sentence2015Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627 , conclude that the commissioner's 2006 supervision order 628 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Honea, by Next Friend v. Coca Cola Bot. Co.
green
2 sentences1952Honea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 143 Texas 272 , 183 S.W. 2d 968 , 160 A.L.R. 1445 , an “exploding bottle” case, clearly sets out the rule that the doctrine of res• ipsa loquitur may be extended beyond the time when the agency causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant. 1952Honea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 143 Texas 272 , 183 S.W. 2d 968 , 160 A.L.R. 1445 , an “exploding bottle” case, clearly sets out the rule that the doctrine of res• ipsa loquitur may be extended beyond the time when the agency causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.