Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-Reliance-Steel-Aluminum-Co-v-Sevcik-by-Brister-evidence-of-defendants-wealth-in-truck-wreck-PI-case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:56:55+00:00

Document:
and remand for a new trial.
Q: How big a company is Reliance?
A: I believe last year's annual sales approximated $1.9 billion.
Q: About how many employees do they have? Do you know?
A: Just guessing, I think we're close to 3,000 I think, nationwide.
A: Yes, sir. They're in Los Angeles, California.
huge dollars and they can afford a huge verdict.
[to plaintiff's counsel] You are not seeking punitives?
Therefore it becomes less relevant.
entitled to bring all of that in.
This, I think, only tends to make the jurors start thinking about how much money is behind Mr.
item by $6,000, affirmed the rest, and held admission of the gross sales evidence was harmless.
The defendants then petitioned this Court for review.
otherwise was simply an unsolicited attempt to show Reliance made a lot of money.
regardless of the reason for his condition.
objective one; it does not generally allow smaller companies to do what bigger companies cannot.
traditional rule to the contrary.
the other party tried to do the same, especially if the other party's evidence was excluded.
is devoid of any testimony or affidavits” supporting it.
and mental anguish), there was no evidence that further medical treatment could do anything about it.
evidence was available, the jurors' findings generally exceeded it by a substantial amount.
error likely made no difference.
evidence of gross sales is ever likely to be harmful, the evidence offered here surely must qualify.
Reliance's huge revenues played a crucial role on the key issue at trial.
rules of evidence as everyone could ignore them once with impunity.
and they have others around the country.
[closing argument] They don't even care what happens out on the highway with their 18-wheelers.
the country. No. No. They don't care what happens.
apparent relation to this traffic accident other than to suggest that it could pay a big judgment.
evidence that at least they thought it would have some likely effect.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand the case for a new trial.
and that she had no means of supporting or educating her children”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
 Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 30 (Tex. 1994) (punctuation omitted).
(Tex. 1987) (holding hospital's finances admissible on issue of gross negligence).
 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code '' 41.009, 41.011(b).
could not afford additional equipment or personnel training).
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”).
 Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Alexander, 868 S.W.2d 322, 331 (Tex. 1993) (Gonzalez, J., concurring).
 Tex. R. App. P. 44.1; Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131, 144 (Tex. 2004).
 McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tex. 1992) (quoting Lorusso v. Members Mut. Ins. Co., 603 S.W.2d 818, 821 (Tex.
 Nissan Motor Co., 145 S.W.3d at 144.
 Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Reese, 584 S.W.2d 835, 841 (Tex. 1979); accord, Texas Dept. of Human Servs. v. White, 817 S.W.
2d 62, 63 (Tex. 1991).
beyond relevant evidence showed admission of prejudicial memo was harmful).
 The tax returns reported income of $4,945 in 1995, $1,224 in 1996, $216 in 1997, $718 in 1998, and $459 in 1999.
expert testimony was harmful as it was “noncumulative” and “controlling, though not conclusive”).
and dysfunctional ability as parent).
 Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131, 144 (Tex. 2004).
 Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 830 S.W.2d 911, 917 (Tex. 1992).
insurance here” in response to juror's comment about serving on a previous insurance case was harmless); Putman v.
1991, no writ) (holding counsel's response to juror's question in voir dire about plaintiff's insurance coverage was harmless).
relevance. Trial judges can expect must less leeway in appellate review of relevance rulings that involve such classifications.”).
must portray will be dealt with harshly.”).
432 (1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.