relationship test in Texas

2013Gutierrez, 583 S.W.2d at 319 (remanding personal injury suit for accident in Mexico between two Texas residents for consideration of the most significant relationship test); see also Robertson v. Estate of McKnight, 609 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Tex. 1980) (concluding New Mexico law should apply although accident occurred in Texas).

2000The Restatement provides that "all conflicts cases sounding in tort will be governed by the most significant relationship test as enunciated in §§ 6 and 145." Gutierrez v. Collins , 583 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex. 1979).

1994Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.1984), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to the most significant relationship test and the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.

1992We note on court of appeals cases which would not apply the law of the state where the putative marriage is celebrated but would apply the significant relationship test of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS §§ 6, 145 (1971), as set out in Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414, 421 (Tex. 1984), to determine which state’s law apply.

2010See Schutz II, 63 S.W.3d at 446 (holding error harmless where inadmissible expert testimony was “a small portion of a large amount of evidence presented that the jury could have considered in assessing the victim’s credibility”).

2010See Schutz II, 63 S.W.3d at 446 (holding error harmless where inadmissible expert testimony was "a small portion of a large amount of evidence presented that the jury could have considered in assessing the victim's credibility").

2019Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex. 1979) (holding that “in the future[,] all conflicts cases sounding in tort will be governed by the ‘most significant relationship’ test as enunciated in Sections 6 and 145 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts”); see also Torrington, 46 S.W.3d at 848 ; Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Tex. 2000); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS §§ 6, 145 (AM.

2019For purposes of damages under the most significant relationship analysis, “under Texas law, the most important factor is not where the injury occurred but rather where the plaintiff is domiciled.” Bain, 257 F.Supp.2d at 878 (citing Torrington, 46 S.W.3d at 849 ).

2019Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex. 1979) (holding that “in the future[,] all conflicts cases sounding in tort will be governed by the ‘most significant relationship’ test as enunciated in Sections 6 and 145 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts”); see also Torrington, 46 S.W.3d at 848 ; Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Tex. 2000); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS §§ 6, 145 (AM.

2016In this Court, Plaintiffs also state, “It is plausible that Texas law regarding liability applies and that Kansas law regarding remedies applies.” See Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Tex. 2000) (stating, under most significant relationship test, court considers which state’s law has most significant relationship “to the particular issue to be resolved”); see also Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 850 (Tex. 2000) (noting plaintiff’s domiciliary state usually has strong interest in seeing its compensatory damages law applied).

2018See id. (citing United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442 (11th Cir. 1990) (concluding that the relationship test was “more reasonable” than the possession test and holding that officers acted within scope of a premises warrant by searching purse of a person who lived at the premises but fled as officers arrived); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F.2d 283 (9th Cir.1988) (finding that the co-owner of business searched with valid warrant had a sufficient relationship to the premises to allow police to search briefcase); Giwa, 831 F.2d at 545 (concluding that the search of defendant’s bag was appropri

2018“This test derives from the relationship test, but instead of focusing on the relationship between the visitor and the premises, it focuses on the notice given to police regarding an item’s ownership before it is searched.” Id.

2011Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

2011Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

2001Killough v. Hinds, 161 Tex. 178 , 338 S.W.2d 707, 710-11 (1960); Davis v. Lund, 41 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Tex.Comm’n App.1931, holding approved).

2001Killough v. Hinds, 161 Tex. 178 , 338 S.W.2d 707, 710-11 (1960); Davis v. Lund, 41 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Tex.Comm’n App.1931, holding approved).

2001Killough v. Hinds, 161 Tex. 178 , 338 S.W.2d 707, 710-11 (1960); Davis v. Lund, 41 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Tex.Comm’n App.1931, holding approved).

2000Killough v. Hinds , 338 S.W.2d 707, 710-11 (Tex. 1960); Davis v. Lund , 41 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1931, holding approved).

2001In re Oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz , 659 F.2d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 1981).

2001In re Oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz, 659 F.2d 789, 794 (7th Cir.1981).

2018The court -4- 04-17-00405-CR further noted, “Courts determining whether a premises search warrant permits the search of a visitor’s belongings have usually adopted one of three approaches: the possession test, the relationship test, or the actual-notice test.” Gilstrap, 332 P.3d at 44 .

2018See id.; but see Gilstrap, 332 P.3d at 45 (explaining the possession test and the relationship test are two distinct tests).

2015Likewise, “[t]he vagueness of the court’s order indicates that the substantial relationship test was not used; had it been, the court should have been able to state without difficulty the precise factors establishing a substantial relationship between the two representations.” Id.

1994In NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.1989), we stated that to satisfy the substantial relationship test as a basis for disqualification a movant must prove that the facts of the previous represen *321 tation are so related to the facts in the pending litigation that a genuine threat exists that confidences revealed to former counsel will be divulged to a present adversary.

2013Gutierrez, 583 S.W.2d at 319 (remanding personal injury suit for accident in Mexico between two Texas residents for consideration of the most significant relationship test); see also Robertson v. Estate of McKnight, 609 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Tex. 1980) (concluding New Mexico law should apply although accident occurred in Texas).

1994Id. at 536 .

2023See Keck, 20 S.W.3d at 699 & n.3 (noting that a presumption of unfairness applied to a release agreement between attorney and client because of the fiduciary nature of the relationship but that the presumption would not have arisen if the client had severed the attorney–client relationship and hired new counsel before signing the release). 16 363 S.W.3d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“[A]n independent executor does not owe a fiduciary duty to persons who claim an interest in a decedent’s non-testamentary property; to them, she owes no legal duty of care.”).

2023See Keck, 20 S.W.3d at 699 & n.3 (noting that a presumption of unfairness applied to a release agreement between attorney and client because of the fiduciary nature of the relationship but that the presumption would not have arisen if the client had severed the attorney–client relationship and hired new counsel before signing the release). 16 363 S.W.3d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“[A]n independent executor does not owe a fiduciary duty to persons who claim an interest in a decedent’s non-testamentary property; to them, she owes no legal duty of care.”).

2023See Thetford, 574 S.W.3d at 374 .

2018See Leiper, 761 A.2d at 462 (concluding that “the relationship/notice test is so nebulous it provides little guidance to police officers or trial courts”); Commonwealth v. Reese, 520 Pa. 29 , 549 A.2d 909, 911 (1988) (explaining that the relationship test would make it “impossible for police to effectively search a premises where visitors are present because they would not know which items, clothing and containers could be searched and which could not be searched”); Jackson, 873 P.2d at 1168 (explaining that the relationship test would require officers “to ascertain the ownership of each item

2018See Leiper, 761 A.2d at 462 (concluding that “the relationship/notice test is so nebulous it provides little guidance to police officers or trial courts”); Commonwealth v. Reese, 520 Pa. 29 , 549 A.2d 909, 911 (1988) (explaining that the relationship test would make it “impossible for police to effectively search a premises where visitors are present because they would not know which items, clothing and containers could be searched and which could not be searched”); Jackson, 873 P.2d at 1168 (explaining that the relationship test would require officers “to ascertain the ownership of each item

2018See Leiper, 761 A.2d at 462 (concluding that “the relationship/notice test is so nebulous it provides little guidance to police officers or trial courts”); Commonwealth v. Reese, 520 Pa. 29 , 549 A.2d 909, 911 (1988) (explaining that the relationship test would make it “impossible for police to effectively search a premises where visitors are present because they would not know which items, clothing and containers could be searched and which could not be searched”); Jackson, 873 P.2d at 1168 (explaining that the relationship test would require officers “to ascertain the ownership of each item

2018See id. (citing United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442 (11th Cir. 1990) (concluding that the relationship test was “more reasonable” than the possession test and holding that officers acted within scope of a premises warrant by searching purse of a person who lived at the premises but fled as officers arrived); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F.2d 283 (9th Cir.1988) (finding that the co-owner of business searched with valid warrant had a sufficient relationship to the premises to allow police to search briefcase); Giwa, 831 F.2d at 545 (concluding that the search of defendant’s bag was appropri

2018“This test allows police to search an item that may contain the object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident.” Id. (citing Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (finding search of defendant’s coin purse proper because no “circumstances provid[ed] clear notice that the purse actually belonged to [defendant]”); People v. McCabe, 144 Cal. App. 3d 827 , 192 Cal. Rptr. 635, 637 (1983) (finding search of purse was proper because police had no facts that “would have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a non-resident”)

2018“This test allows police to search an item that may contain the object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident.” Id. (citing Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (finding search of defendant’s coin purse proper because no “circumstances provid[ed] clear notice that the purse actually belonged to [defendant]”); People v. McCabe, 144 Cal. App. 3d 827 , 192 Cal. Rptr. 635, 637 (1983) (finding search of purse was proper because police had no facts that “would have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a non-resident”)

2018See id. (citing United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442 (11th Cir. 1990) (concluding that the relationship test was “more reasonable” than the possession test and holding that officers acted within scope of a premises warrant by searching purse of a person who lived at the premises but fled as officers arrived); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F.2d 283 (9th Cir.1988) (finding that the co-owner of business searched with valid warrant had a sufficient relationship to the premises to allow police to search briefcase); Giwa, 831 F.2d at 545 (concluding that the search of defendant’s bag was appropri

2018“This test allows police to search an item that may contain the object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident.” Id. (citing Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (finding search of defendant’s coin purse proper because no “circumstances provid[ed] clear notice that the purse actually belonged to [defendant]”); People v. McCabe, 144 Cal. App. 3d 827 , 192 Cal. Rptr. 635, 637 (1983) (finding search of purse was proper because police had no facts that “would have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a non-resident”)

2018“This test allows police to search an item that may contain the object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident.” Id. (citing Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (finding search of defendant’s coin purse proper because no “circumstances provid[ed] clear notice that the purse actually belonged to [defendant]”); People v. McCabe, 144 Cal. App. 3d 827 , 192 Cal. Rptr. 635, 637 (1983) (finding search of purse was proper because police had no facts that “would have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a non-resident”)

2018“This test allows police to search an item that may contain the object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident.” Id. (citing Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (finding search of defendant’s coin purse proper because no “circumstances provid[ed] clear notice that the purse actually belonged to [defendant]”); People v. McCabe, 144 Cal. App. 3d 827 , 192 Cal. Rptr. 635, 637 (1983) (finding search of purse was proper because police had no facts that “would have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a non-resident”)

2018See Leiper, 761 A.2d at 462 (concluding that “the relationship/notice test is so nebulous it provides little guidance to police officers or trial courts”); Commonwealth v. Reese, 520 Pa. 29 , 549 A.2d 909, 911 (1988) (explaining that the relationship test would make it “impossible for police to effectively search a premises where visitors are present because they would not know which items, clothing and containers could be searched and which could not be searched”); Jackson, 873 P.2d at 1168 (explaining that the relationship test would require officers “to ascertain the ownership of each item

2018“This test allows police to search an item that may contain the object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident.” Id. (citing Waters v. State, 924 P.2d 437, 439 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (finding search of defendant’s coin purse proper because no “circumstances provid[ed] clear notice that the purse actually belonged to [defendant]”); People v. McCabe, 144 Cal. App. 3d 827 , 192 Cal. Rptr. 635, 637 (1983) (finding search of purse was proper because police had no facts that “would have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a non-resident”)

2009Grant Thornton LLP v. Suntrust Bank, 133 S.W.3d 342, 357-58 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied).

2006See Montanez v. State, — S.W.3d —, —, 2006 WL 1083917 (Tex. Cr.App., PD-894-04, decided today) (Womack, J., dissenting).