Legal Opinion
Villasan v. O'ROURKE
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
Decided May 26, 2005No. 09-04-409 CVPublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOLLIS HORTON, Justice.
This is a case of first impression and requires that we interpret the amended provisions of section 101.106(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code enacted as a part of the Legislature’s tort reform efforts in 2003. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. <& Rem.Code Ann. § 101.106(e) (Vernon Supp.2005). Section 101.106(e) provides in suits where both the governmental unit and its employee are sued, the suit against the employee immediately be dismissed on motion of the governmental unit. The ultimate issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Dr. Antonio Villasan’s…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-DavyTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- City of Lancaster v. ChambersTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Subaru of America, Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
- Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. MillerTexas Supreme Court · 2001
- Dallas Cty. Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. BossleyTexas Supreme Court · 1998
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Texas Bay Cherry Hill, L.P. v. City of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2008
- City of Arlington v. RandallCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2009
- Kamel v. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2010
- Singleton v. Casteel, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2008
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.