green
Positive treatment
Trending · 86 recent citers
Issue: Kennedy factorsTX ↗
Issue: Oregon v. Kennedy standardTX ↗
Issue: retrial after defenseTX ↗
Issue: Wheeler factorsTX ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
57.9 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 5 distinct cases, 2007–2015 ·
…in a case like this, a defendant suffers the same harm as when the state intentionally 'goads' or provokes the defendant into moving for a mistrial.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 6× by 5 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…under the unique circumstances of that case
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 ·
…conduct giving rise to the successful motion for mistrial was intended to provoke or goad the defendant into moving for mistrial
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Escamilla, Julio Cesar
App. 1996); but see Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. D/B/A Antoine Dental Center Dr. Behzad Nazari Harlingen Family Dentistry, P.C. A/K/A Practical Business Solutions, Series LLC Juan D. Villarreal D.D.S., Series PLLC D/B/A Harlingen Family Dentistry Group v. State
in reata, we held that a governmental entity that brings an action waives immunity from suit for claims that are germane to, connected with, and properly defensive to its action, to the extent of an offset.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morgan Rodriguez Navarro v. the State of Texas
(2×)
This is a “‘narrow exception’ to the general rule that there is no jeopardy bar to a retrial after a defense-requested mistrial.” Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Paul Daniel Dedrick v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of T.H., a Juvenile v. .
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
On appeal, we review a trial court’s ruling to grant or deny habeas relief for an abuse of discretion, and we must review the evidence in the light most 5 T.H. and the State argue from these precedents, which include Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 496 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Guadalupe Contreras v. the State of Texas
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 495 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Jay Allen Rotter v. the State of Texas
App. 2007); and then citing Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Ronnie Gilbert v. the State of Texas
See Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 679 ; Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 507-08 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte MacK Watson
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The appellate court, in reviewing a “double-jeopardy writ,” must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, understanding that the trial court is in the best position to make the evaluations necessary to this type of decision, particularly where a prosecutor’s state of mind is concerned.” Harmel v. State, No. 03-15-00586-CR, 2016 WL 2342959 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 27, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick Neal Hawthorne v. State
Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Miguel Martinez
(9×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 503, 505 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Robert Joseph Yetman
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Robert Joseph Yetman
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crispin James Harmel v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 509-10 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Dora Ahn
(2×)
Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 507-08 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Raul Constancio v. State
(2×)
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 670 ; Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Ralph Cecil Melton
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 673 , 102 S.Ct. at 2088 ; Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Vikki MacIas
See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 673 , 102 S.Ct. at 2088 ; Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Juan Antonio Rodriguez
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Josue Adonay Velasquez v. State
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In addition, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recognized in Ex parte Masonheimer that the Kennedy decision “was intended to delineate the bounds of the narrow exception to the general rule that there is no jeopardy bar to a retrial after a defense-requested mistrial.” 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Michael Walker v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Those arguments are not advanced on appeal. 2 679, 102 S. Ct. at 2091 ; Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr
See United States v. Holley, 986 F.2d 100, 104 (5th Cir. 1993) (sickness of juror or judge manifest necessity for mistrial); United States v. Smith, 390 F.2d 420, 425 (4th Cir. 1968) (finding manifest necessity “when a participant in the proceedings dies or becomes ill”); United States v. Stein, 140 F. Supp. 761, 763-65 (S.D.N.Y. 1956) (retrial not barred following mistrial due to illness of defendant); Westover v. State, 66 Ariz. 145, 149 , 185 P.2d 315, 317 (1947) (jeopardy does not attach following mistrial due to judge’s illness); State v. Anderson, 988 A.2d 276, 278, 283-84 (Conn. 2…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dedric Lemon Harbor
Instead, double jeopardy attaches “when the prosecutorial ‘conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke [or goad] the defendant into moving for a mistrial.’ ” Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 676, 679 , 102 S.Ct. at 2089, 2091 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pittman v. State
Appellant cites Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676, 679 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982), and Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex.Crim.App.2007), to support his claim that, if bad faith is found in the State’s actions, a retrial is barred.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Jose David Flores Cedillo
Citing a concurring opinion in Ex parte Masonheimer, Cedillo argues that "the objective facts and circumstances clearly demonstrate that the prosecutor intentionally acted improperly." See 220 S.W.3d 494, 509-10 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Jose David Flores Cedillo
Citing a concurring opinion in Ex parte Masonheimer , Cedillo argues that "the objective facts and circumstances clearly demonstrate that the prosecutor intentionally acted improperly." See 220 S.W.3d 494, 509-10 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Sarah Elizabeth O'Connor
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 495, 505-06 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Texas Department of State Health Services and David L. Lakey, M.D., Commissioner v. Nancy Holmes, CLHRP, CME
See State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 223 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Tex. 2007) (reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata, because it “did not restrict Fidelity’s counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State’s] claims” as required by Reata); State v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding court of appeals decision affirming denial of plea to jurisdiction because decision “relied on our first opinion in [Reata] which we have since withdrawn and replaced”); Port Neches-Groves 14 If ERS had recovered on its c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Putnam, LLC
See State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 223 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Tex.2007) (reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata, because it “did not restrict Fidelity’s counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State’s] claims” as required by Reata); State v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding court of appeals decision affirming denial of plea to jurisdiction because decision “relied on our first opinion in [Reata ] which we have since withdrawn and replaced”); Port Neches-Groves Ind. Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Employees Retirement System of Texas// Cross- the Putnam Advisory Company, LLC v. Putnam, LLC, D/B/A Putnam Investments Putnam Investment Management, LLC And the Putnam Advisory Company, LLC// Cross-Appellee, Employees Retirement System of Texas
See State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. , 223 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Tex. 2007) (reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata , because it "did not restrict Fidelity's counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State's] claims" as required by Reata ); State v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc. , 220 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding court of appeals decision affirming denial of plea to jurisdiction because decision "relied on our first opinion in [ Reata ] which we have since withdrawn and replaced"); Port Neches-Groves Ind. Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Employees Retirement System of Texas// Cross- the Putnam Advisory Company, LLC v. Putnam, LLC, D/B/A Putnam Investments Putnam Investment Management, LLC And the Putnam Advisory Company, LLC// Cross-Appellee, Employees Retirement System of Texas
See State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 223 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Tex. 2007) (reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata, because it “did not restrict Fidelity’s counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State’s] claims” as required by Reata); State v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding court of appeals decision affirming denial of plea to jurisdiction because decision “relied on our first opinion in [Reata] which we have since withdrawn and replaced”); Port Neches-Groves 14 If ERS had recovered on its c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Employees Retirement System of Texas// Cross- the Putnam Advisory Company, LLC v. Putnam, LLC, D/B/A Putnam Investments Putnam Investment Management, LLC And the Putnam Advisory Company, LLC// Cross-Appellee, Employees Retirement System of Texas
See State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. , 223 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Tex. 2007) (reversing court of appeals decision, issued prior to Reata , because it "did not restrict Fidelity's counterclaims to a mere offset of [the State's] claims" as required by Reata ); State v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc. , 220 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding court of appeals decision affirming denial of plea to jurisdiction because decision "relied on our first opinion in [ Reata ] which we have since withdrawn and replaced"); Port Neches-Groves Ind. Sch.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Channing Griggs v. State
Id . (citing Ex parte Masonheimer , 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Anthony Charles Graves
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The trial court could have also reasonably found that the State believed that the undisclosed evidence may have made the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.”); id. at 510 (Meyers, J., concurring) (“Rather than trying to determine the subjective intent of the prosecutor, we can objectively look at the actions of the State to determine if the actions were intentional.”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Anthony Charles Graves
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
The Court of Criminal Appeals held, “Under Oregon v. Kentucky, this deliberate conduct,” i.e., the “’intentional’ failure to disclose exculpatory evidence,” “accompanied by this specific mens rea, ” i.e., “the specific intent to avoid the possibility of an acquittal,” “bars a retrial.” Masonheimer at 507-508.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Graves
(13×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The Court of Criminal Appeals held, “Under Oregon v. Kennedy, this deliberate conduct,” ie., the “ ‘intentional’ failure to disclose exculpatory evidence,” “accompanied by this specific mens rea,” ie., “the specific intent to avoid the possibility of an acquittal,” “bars a retrial.” Masonheimer at 507-508.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Anthony Charles Graves
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
App. 2000)) Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d at 805 (bracketed material in Masonheimer) (emphasis in Masonheimer); see Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Fidel Flores Rojas
Ex parte Masonheimer , 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Woodrow Miller
Ex parte Masonheimer , 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Bennett
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex.Crim.App.2007).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Michael Joseph Bennett
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Masonheimer , 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Junfang Xie
Ex parte Masonheimer , 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alobaidi v. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Id. at 373 ; see State v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 223 S.W.3d 309, 310 (Tex.2007) (summarizing Reata holding); Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Josephine S. Alobaidi v. the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Id. at 373 ; see State v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. , 223 S.W.3d 309, 310 (Tex. 2007) (summarizing Reata holding); Tex. Dep = t of Transp. v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc. , 220 S.W.3d 494, 494 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Glenn Alan Shepherd v. the State of Texas
See Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Deandre Tireon Enoch v. the State of Texas
(4×)
Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 672–73 (quoting United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611 (1976)); see Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494 , 507–508 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited "see"
Ex Parte RC Curtis v. the State of Texas
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ex parte Masonheimer, 4 220 S.W.3d 494 , 505–06 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Michael Sean McCord
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 670 , 102 S. Ct. at 2086 ; see Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Tex. Crim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE of Texas, by and Through the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner,
v.
PRECISION SOLAR CONTROLS, INC., Respondent
v.
PRECISION SOLAR CONTROLS, INC., Respondent
06-0348.
Texas Supreme Court.
Apr 5, 2007.
Don Wayne Cruse Jr., Asst. Solicitor Gen., Greg Abbott, Atty. Gen., Barry Ross McBee, Edward D. Burbach, Rafael Edward Cruz, Office of Attorney General, Austin, Christopher M. Swanson, Barron & Adler, Houston, Kent C. Sullivan, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and David S. Morales, Office of Attorney General of Texas, Austin, for Petitioner., Barry K. Bishop, Clark Thomas & Winters, LLP, Austin, for Respondent., Michael Leonard Ray Burnett, Shaunes-sy & Burnett, P.C., Austin, for Other.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
PER CURIAM.
The State sued Precision Solar Controls, Inc. for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and quantum meruit, alleging that traffic signal displays made by Precision were defective. Precision denied the State’s allegations and counterclaimed for damages for business disparagement. The trial court denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, and, on the State’s interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals affirmed. 188 S.W.3d 364 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006).
The court of appeals relied on our first opinion in Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas, which we have since withdrawn and replaced. 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex.2006). We held that a governmental entity that brings an action waives immunity from suit for claims that are germane to, connected with, and properly defensive to its action, to the extent of an offset. Id. at 373. The State argues that it has not by its action waived immunity for an intentional tort claim like Precision’s. Such arguments should be further considered by the lower court in light of Reata.
Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our order denying its petition for review, grant its petition, and, without hearing oral argument, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Tex.R.App. P. 59.1.