McIntyre v. Ramirez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking expert affidavit in medical malpractice case because affidavit contained no supporting facts or rationale for its conclusions
• holding that doctor had burden of proof to show he was exempted from general applicability of emergency care statute
• holding that Maryland doctor not qualified to testify about \what's ordinarily billed or what the law ordinarily allows people to recover for their medical services in the State of Texas\
• holding that Maryland doctor not qualified to testify about “what’s ordinarily billed or what the law ordinarily allows people to recover for their medical services in the State of Texas”
• holding that an affidavit must be based on facts and cannot merely recite factual conclusions and that conclusory statements unsupported by facts are not proper summary-judgment evidence
• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking expert affidavit in medical malpractice case because affidavit contained no supporting facts or rationale for its conclusions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).