West v. Moore

5 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Smith

    126 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    A plaintiff establishes an open courts violation if the right to bring a well-established common law cause of action is abrogated by the Legislature without a showing that the legislative basis for the statute outweighs the denial of the right of redress. Sax, 648 S.W.2d at 665-66; West v. Moore, 116 S.W.3d 101, 106 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). "A statute or ordinance that unreasonably abridges a justiciable right to obtain redress for injuries caused by the wrongful acts of another amounts to a denial of due process."

  2. Reyes v. Manor Indep. Sch. Dist.

    CAUSE NO.: A-14-CA-00469-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2016)

    See id. It is an established tenant of statutory construction that the legislature's enumeration of specific exceptions to a statute of limitations excludes all others by implication. See 51 AM. JUR. 2d Limitation of Actions § 46 (2015) ("Courts generally will not read an exception into a statute of limitations which has not been embodied in the statute, or engraft on a statute of limitations exceptions not contained in it."); see also West v. Moore, 116 S.W.3d 101, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (concluding the tolling provisions of § 16.001 were inapplicable to the two-year statute of limitations established under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, because the Act expressly stated it applied "to all persons regardless of minority or other legal disability"). In this case, the Texas legislature enumerated two exceptions to the one-year statute of limitations it created for filing due process hearings, neither of which are related to the exceptions set forth under § 16.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for bringing a lawsuit.

  3. Clyce v. Butler

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-0793-G (BN) (N.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2015)

    However, where the disabled plaintiff "appear[ed] by next friend and individually" and the court determined the legitimacy of the claims on the merits, the court has adequately protected the interests and rights of the disabled individual. See West v. Moore, 116 S.W.3d 101, 110 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no writ). Allowing the plaintiffs to sue again here would give them a second opportunity to litigate the merits of essentially the same lawsuit. See Magistrate's Recommendation at 2-3.

  4. Acosta v. Hermann Hosp

    No. 14-07-00001-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 22, 2008)   Cited 2 times
    Noting that, under Title VII, claimant's knowledge of discriminatory act, not knowledge that act had discriminatory motive, triggers limitations period and applying that reasoning to limitations period for health care liability claim premised in part on discriminatory denial of epidural anesthesia

    To avoid limitations under section 10.01 of Article 4590i, an injured party must file a medical malpractice claim within two years from one of the following events: (1) the date the breach or tort occurred; (2) the date the treatment that is the subject of the claim is completed; or (3) the date the hospitalization for which the claim is made is completed. West v. Moore, 116 S.W.3d 101, 105B06 (Tex.App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing former Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 4590i, § 10.01 (Vernon Supp. 2003)). A plaintiff may not choose among alternative limitation periods in bringing her claim.

  5. Carter v. MacFadyen

    93 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that unexplained two- and three-month gaps between timely filing of petition and first service attempts after limitations expired constituted lack of diligence

    But the statute bars application of this tolling provision to health care liability claims, and Carter has not challenged the constitutionality of the statute. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4590i, § 10.01 (Vernon Supp. 2002).; West v. Moore, No. 14-00-01478-CV, 2002 WL 122147, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2002, no pet.); Jones v. Miller, 964 S.W.2d 159, 163 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). • On November 8, 1999, Carter filed suit and requested service on Dr. MacFadyen.