Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs

39 Citing cases

  1. Gordon v. Brunig

    No. 02-09-040-CV (Tex. App. May. 20, 2010)   Cited 2 times

    When a party fails to answer a request for admissions, the matters therein are deemed admitted. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(c); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). Such admissions are "conclusively established as to the party making the admission unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend the admission."

  2. In re Kellogg-Brown Root

    45 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 15 times
    Holding opposing party "would not be unduly prejudiced by the amendment of the deemed admissions" because "requests for admission were delivered eight weeks prior to trial," providing opposing party time "[to] assess the responses and to take any appropriate action" before trial

    Withdrawal or amendment of an admission is permitted on a showing of good cause and a finding by the trial court that (1) the party relying on the deemed admission will not be unduly prejudiced, and (2) presentation of the merits of the action will be served thereby. Tex.R.Civ.P. 198.3; Wal-MartStores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 356 (Tex. 1998); Stelly, 927 S.W.2d at 622. "`Good cause' is established when the failure to respond is accidental or the result of mistake, rather than intentional or the result of conscious indifference."

  3. Alexander v. State

    NO. 02-10-00302-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that "deemed admissions are the consequence of missing a procedural deadline, not a sanction for discovery abuse"

    The State responds that Alexander failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely respond to the requested discovery and that Alexander's uncorroborated and refutable claim to ownership of the property is not sufficient to set aside his deemed admissions. When a party fails to properly answer a request for admissions, the matters therein are deemed admitted as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(c); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). The trial court does not have discretion to refuse to deem the requests admitted.

  4. Saum v. Am. Express Nat'l Bank

    No. 02-19-00415-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 18, 2021)   Cited 5 times

    "'Good cause' is established when the failure to respond is accidental or the result of a mistake, rather than intentional or the result of conscious indifference." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 356 (Tex. 1998); see Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442. A clerical error, including a calendaring error, is "sufficient to establish good cause for a failure to timely respond to a request for admission, even if a party is negligent, as long as the party's negligence does not rise to the level of conscious indifference."

  5. In re Sewell

    472 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that opposing parties not unduly prejudiced by withdrawal of deemed admissions when, knowing liability was contested, they decided not to conduct additional depositions

    “Undue prejudice depends on whether withdrawing an admission or filing a late response will delay trial or significantly hamper the opposing party's ability to prepare for it.” Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 443 (citing Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682, 687 (Tex.2002)); Stelly, 927 S.W.2d at 622; see alsoWal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.1998) (per curiam) (finding no undue prejudice from withdrawal of deemed admissions where plaintiff had already deposed withdrawing party). Finally, “[t]he burden of proof on all three requirements [of Rule 198.3] is on the party seeking withdrawal.”

  6. Nguyen v. SLK & Assocs., LLC

    NO. 01-13-01007-CV (Tex. App. May. 12, 2015)

    TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2, 198.3; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). Withdrawal or amendment of an admission is permitted on a showing of good cause and a finding by the trial court that (1) the party relying on the deemed admission will not be unduly prejudiced, and (2) presentation of the merits of the action will be served thereby.

  7. George v. Colony Builders, Inc.

    NO. 01-13-00010-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 28, 2014)

    If the opposing party does not serve its responses to the admissions requests within that time period, the matters in the requests are deemed admitted against that party without the necessity of a court order. TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2(c); see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). Any matter admitted or deemed admitted is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.

  8. In re A.A.

    NO. 01-13-00542-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 12, 2013)   Cited 8 times

    TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). A matter admitted is conclusively established unless the trial court permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.

  9. Arango v. Davila

    Nos. 13-09-00470-CV, 13-09-00627-CV (Tex. App. May. 19, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). Any matter deemed admitted is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.

  10. Approximately v. State

    No. 01-09-00366-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 17, 2010)

    TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2, 198.3; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998); Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App.-Houston 2006, no pet.).