Jessica Briones v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “the insurer (the subrogee) ‘stands in the shoes’ of the insured (the subrogor)”
• explaining that we are “cautioned against following a literal interpretation of a statute that would thwart the overall statutory scheme or lead to an absurd result”
• noting that in subrogation actions, the “insurer (the subrogee) ‘stands in 28 the shoes’ of the insured (the subrogor), and succeeds to the insured’s rights and 1 remedies.”
• holding that a 16 trial court may dismiss a claim under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) where a 17 complaint is not plausible because the party bringing the 18 4 19 (...continued) claims. Of course, Szanto’s complaint also contained a claim for 20 denial of discharge under § 727(a
• describing subrogation as \a purely derivative right—meaning that the subrogee succeeds to rights no greater than those of the subrogor\
• explaining that courts apply the ordinary meaning of the term “incur” in the CERCLA context, “which is ‘[t]o acquire or come into,’ ‘[t]o become liable or subject to as a result of one’s action,’ to ‘bring upon oneself’” (quoting Am. Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).