green
Positive treatment
14.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Byars v. Walmart Inc
Kress & Co. v. Selph, 250 S.W.2d 883, 893 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1952, writ denied), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998), rev'd on other grounds by 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Monreal v. Walmart Inc.
Kress & Co. v. Selph, 250 S.W.2d 883, 893 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1952, writ denied), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998), rev’d on other grounds by 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998), and a concern that the law was not settled after Leitch as expressed in Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290 , 293 n.5 (5th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Solis v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
The Fifth Circuit then looked to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.1998) which cited Selph as good law, stating that “as general manager, we know of no reason why [defendant] should not be considered as the operator of the premises in question.” Valdes , 158 F.3d at *5 (quoting Deggs, 971 S.W.2d at 75).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman v. Cordero
Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Valdes v. Wal-Mart, 158 F.3d 584 , 1998 WL 648571 at *13-14 (5th Cir.1998) (unpublished), the Texas Court of Appeals decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex.App.1996) rev’d on other grounds 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.1998), and the Palmer decision mentioned above, the Guevara court held that the store manager was not improperly joined because there was ambiguity in Texas law as to whether there existed a reasonable possibility of recovery against the store manager.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc
(3×)
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998), the court of appeals cited Selph as good law, stating that as "general manager, we know of no reason why [defendant] should not be considered as the operator of the premises in question." 971 S.W.2d at 75.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc
(3×)
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998), the court of appeals cited Selph as good law, stating that as "general manager, we know of no reason why [defendant] should not be considered as the operator of the premises in question." 971 S.W.2d at 75.
cited
Cited "see"
Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.1998)..
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
in Re Charles Butt
See, e.g., Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72–75 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998); S.H.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Butt
See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72 -75 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.1998); S.H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Southwest Country Enterprises, Inc. v. Lucky Lady Oil Co.
See Waldon v. City of Longview, 855 S.W.2d 875, 880 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1993, no writ); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 971 S.W.2d 72, 77 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996, no writ), rev’d on other grounds, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.1998).
Danny Leon MATTHEWS, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas
v.
the STATE of Texas
1344-97.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jul 15, 1998.
Brian D. Coyne, Houston, for Appellant., Keli Pool Roper, Assistant District Attorney, Houston, Matthew Paul, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the State. .
Holland.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, he contended the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that a juvenile was an accomplice witness. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Matthews v. State, 965 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist], 1997). However, at the time of that decision, the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.Cr. App.1998). Accordingly,'we summarily grant appellant’s petition for review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the ease to that Court for reconsideration in light of Blake.