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 1969–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marathon Oil Co. v. Sternergreen2 sentences2019See Sterner, 632 S.W.2d at 574 (Because there were two possible defendants, either of which could have been separately negligent in performing its own duty, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.); Sanders v. Naes Cent., Inc., 498 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (concluding trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant because res ipsa loquitur was not applicable when there was more than 10 one potential cause of the accident and there was no evidence that it was more probable the accident was caused by defendant’s negligence). 2016See Marathon Oil Co. v. Sterner, 632 S.W.2d 571, 574 (Tex. 1982) (holding that where there were two possible defendants, either of which could have been separately negligent in performing its own duty, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable); Bond, 388 S.W.2d at 685 ; Mathis, 189 S.W.3d at 846 . | 2 | 3 |
Sanders v. Naes Central, Inc.green1 sentence2019See Sterner, 632 S.W.2d at 574 (Because there were two possible defendants, either of which could have been separately negligent in performing its own duty, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.); Sanders v. Naes Cent., Inc., 498 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (concluding trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant because res ipsa loquitur was not applicable when there was more than 10 one potential cause of the accident and there was no evidence that it was more probable the accident was caused by defendant’s negligence). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathis v. RKL Design/Build
green
1 sentence2016See Marathon Oil Co. v. Sterner, 632 S.W.2d 571, 574 (Tex. 1982) (holding that where there were two possible defendants, either of which could have been separately negligent in performing its own duty, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable); Bond, 388 S.W.2d at 685 ; Mathis, 189 S.W.3d at 846 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bond v. Otis Elevator Company
green
1 sentence2016See Marathon Oil Co. v. Sterner, 632 S.W.2d 571, 574 (Tex. 1982) (holding that where there were two possible defendants, either of which could have been separately negligent in performing its own duty, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable); Bond, 388 S.W.2d at 685 ; Mathis, 189 S.W.3d at 846 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
City of Houston v. Church
green
1 sentence1988Id. at 244 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Universal Atlas Cement Co. v. Oswald
green
1 sentence1972In Universal Atlas Cement Company v. Oswald, 138 Tex. 159 , 157 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Sup.1941), the court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable, although it is to be noted that the holding was made upon the ground that the plaintiff had gone further than alleging generally that the defendant set off the blast and that the damages proximately resulted therefrom, and had alleged specific acts of negligence. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Universal Atlas Cement Co. v. Oswald
green
1 sentence1972In Universal Atlas Cement Company v. Oswald, 138 Tex. 159 , 157 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Sup.1941), the court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable, although it is to be noted that the holding was made upon the ground that the plaintiff had gone further than alleging generally that the defendant set off the blast and that the damages proximately resulted therefrom, and had alleged specific acts of negligence. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Jones v. Nafco Oil and Gas, Inc.
green
1 sentence1969The following statement is made: “An essential allegation necessary to warrant its [res ipsa rule] application in a case in which defectiveness of equipment is alleged is that the management and control of the equipment which produced the injury shall be with the defendant exclusively.” See also Jones v. Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.Sup., 1964), in which it was held the evidence failed to show that defendant had exclusive control of the facilities, and, therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.