Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 975 S.W.2d 606 - In Re Ethyl Corp.

In Re Ethyl Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2014

23 state decisions

170199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston))

Relationships

Relies on Walker v. Packer · Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc. · In the Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Incorporated · Womack v. Berry · Spencer v. Israel, Warden

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"In determining whether various claims are appropriate for consolidation, `the dominant consideration in every case is whether the trial will be fair and impartial to all parties.'9 Consolidation should be avoided if it would cause `"confusion or prejudice as to render the jury incapable of finding the facts on the basis of the evidence."'10 If an injustice will result from consolidated trials, a trial court has no discretion to deny separate trials.'11 "To aid in the determination of whether consolidation is appropriate in a mass tort case alleging exposure in a workplace, this Court in Ethyl adopted the `Maryland factors' [ [3] ]: (1) whether the plaintiffs shared a common work site; (2) whether the plaintiffs shared similar occupations; (3) whether the plaintiffs had similar times of exposure; (4) whether the plaintiffs have a similar type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs are alive or deceased; (6) the status of discovery; (7) whether all plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel; (8) the type of cancer alleged, if any; and (9) the type of products to which the plaintiffs were exposed.12 In Ethyl we explained the considerations in applying these factors: "`As the number of Maryland factors that different cases have in common increases, the number of those claims that can be tried together may increase. But there is no mathematical formula, and some of the Maryland factors should be given more weight than others. The maximum number of claims that can be aggregated is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““there has been full and complete discovery, multiple jury verdicts, and a persistent vitality in the plaintiffs’ [contentions]. Typically at the mature stage, little or no new evidence will be developed, significant appellate review of any novel legal issues has been concluded, and at least one full cycle of trial strategies has been exhausted.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.