42 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1990–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stansbury v. Californiagreen2 sentences2026Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 (1994); Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 . 2025Id. (citing Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322-23, 325 , 114 S. Ct. 1526 , 128 L. | 6 | 8 |
Felix Blondin v. Marthe Duboisgreen2 sentences2010A court hearing a Hague Convention petition under the HCCAICA “has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim.” Id. (citing Blondin v. Dubois , 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir. 1999)). 2010A court hearing a Hague Convention petition under the HCCAICA “has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim.” Id. (citing Blondín v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.1999)). | 4 | 5 |
Florida v. Bostickgreen2 sentences2020Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438 (1991); Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 254 (Tex. Crim. 2008Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 ; Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 730, 738 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, no pet.). | 3 | 4 |
In Re DARgreen2 sentences2009See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322 , 114 S.Ct. at 1528-29 ; see also In re M.R.R., 2 S.W.3d at 323 ; see also In re D.A.R., 73 S.W.3d at 511 . 2009See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322 , 114 S.Ct. at 1528-29 ; see also In re M.R.R., 2 S.W.3d at 323 ; see also In re D.A.R., 73 S.W.3d at 511 . | 3 | 3 |
In Re MRRgreen2 sentences2009See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322 , 114 S.Ct. at 1528-29 ; see also In re M.R.R., 2 S.W.3d at 323 ; see also In re D.A.R., 73 S.W.3d at 511 . 2009See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322 , 114 S.Ct. at 1528-29 ; see also In re M.R.R., 2 S.W.3d at 323 ; see also In re D.A.R., 73 S.W.3d at 511 . | 3 | 3 |
Ramirez v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 438 (1991); Dowthitt , 931 S.W.2d at 254 ; Ramirez v. State , 105 S.W.3d 730, 738 (Tex. App.--Austin 2003, no pet.). 2008Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 ; Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 730, 738 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
Dowthitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 (1994); Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 . 2025Id. (citing Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322-23, 325 , 114 S. Ct. 1526 , 128 L. | 2 | 8 |
Lewelling v. Lewellinggreen2 sentences2017See Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d at 167 (concluding that fact that parent “was unemployed at the time of the custody hearing and living in somewhat crowded conditions” was no evidence of significant impairment). 2010Id. at 165– 67, 172 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting). | 2 | 4 |
Emanuel Friedrich v. Jeana Michele Friedrich David Harper and Shirley Harpergreen2 sentences2018A.V.P.G. , 251 S.W.3d at 122 ; Blondin v. Dubois , 189 F.3d 240 , 245 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Friedrich v. Friedrich , 983 F.2d 1396 , 1400 (6th Cir. 1993) ). 2008Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.1999)( citing Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1400 (6th Cir.1993)); accord Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 416-17 (E.D.Mich. 1997). | 2 | 3 |
Thompson v. Keohanegreen2 sentences2022App. 2021) (citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995)). 2022App. 2021) (citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995)). | 2 | 2 |
Howes v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2012See Howes v. Fields, - U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 1181, 1193 , 182 L.Ed.2d 17 (2012) (holding that physical restraints are at least one factor to consider in the custody analysis). 36 . 2012See Howes v. Fields, - U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 1181, 1193 , 182 L.Ed.2d 17 (2012) (holding that physical restraints are at least one factor to consider in the custody analysis). 36 . | 2 | 2 |
Application of Wojcik v. Wojcikgreen2 sentences2008Blondín v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.l999)(cit ing Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1400 (6th Cir.1993)); accord Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 416-17 (E.D.Mich. 1997). 2008Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.1999)( citing Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1400 (6th Cir.1993)); accord Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 416-17 (E.D.Mich. 1997). | 2 | 2 |
Arizona v. Robersongreen2 sentences2006Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 681 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ). 2006Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 681 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ). | 1 | 2 |
Estrada v. Stategreen1 sentence2024“The need to scrupulously honor a defendant’s invocation of Miranda rights does not arise until created by the pressures of custodial interrogation.” Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 296 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State of Texas v. Ortiz, Octaviogreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., id. at 370 fn.8 (declining to consider the request for backup because “it is unclear whether the appellee could have overheard” it); id. at 370 fn.11 (declining to consider that the bundle taped to Mrs. Ortiz’s leg was known to be cocaine because “that information was not related to Johnson within the appellee’s WexlerBPage 14 earshot”); id. at 374 fn. 32 (noting that Ortiz knew that Johnson knew that Ortiz was on probation for a drug offense, making it a relevant consideration in the custody analysis). 2021See, e.g., id. at 370 fn.8 (declining to consider the request for backup because “it is unclear whether the appellee could have overheard” it); id. at 370 fn.11 (declining to consider that the bundle taped to Mrs. Ortiz’s leg was known to be cocaine because “that information was not related to Johnson within the appellee’s WexlerBPage 14 earshot”); id. at 374 fn. 32 (noting that Ortiz knew that Johnson knew that Ortiz was on probation for a drug offense, making it a relevant consideration in the custody analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Contrerasgreen1 sentence2018“Neither [Article 3 of] the Hague Convention nor ICARA apply unless a child has been removed or withheld from the child’s habitual residence.” Flores v. Contreras, 981 S.W.2d 246, 249 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheppardgreen1 sentence2017See Sheppard, 271 S.W.3d at 290 ; Zavala, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1053 , at *5. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Schmidtgreen1 sentence2016Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) ("When they are read together, Article V, section 16 of the Constitution, Section 25.0003(a) of the Government Code, and Article 11.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure give the statutory county court at law, and the judges of that court, the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus when a person is restrained by an accusation or conviction of misdemeanor.”); See also Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial Dist., 769 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (habeas corpus application could be filed with trial court pursuant | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial Districtgreen1 sentence2016Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) ("When they are read together, Article V, section 16 of the Constitution, Section 25.0003(a) of the Government Code, and Article 11.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure give the statutory county court at law, and the judges of that court, the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus when a person is restrained by an accusation or conviction of misdemeanor.”); See also Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial Dist., 769 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (habeas corpus application could be filed with trial court pursuant | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Guinngreen2 sentences2016See Guinn v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 509 , 228 S.W. 233, 234 (1921) (following Lambert); Ex parte Smallwood, 87 Tex.Crim. 268 , 221 S.W. 293, 293 (1920) (citing Lambert); Ex parte Houston, 87 Tex.Crim. 8 , 219 S.W. 826, 826 (1920) (quoting Ex parte Alderete, 83 Tex.Crim. 358 , 203 S.W. 763, 764 (1918) ("It does not follow that the Court of Criminal Appeals will exercise its jurisdiction by granting a writ in every application for writ of habeas corpus. 2016See Guinn v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 509 , 228 S.W. 233, 234 (1921) (following Lambert); Ex parte Smallwood, 87 Tex.Crim. 268 , 221 S.W. 293, 293 (1920) (citing Lambert); Ex parte Houston, 87 Tex.Crim. 8 , 219 S.W. 826, 826 (1920) (quoting Ex parte Alderete, 83 Tex.Crim. 358 , 203 S.W. 763, 764 (1918) ("It does not follow that the Court of Criminal Appeals will exercise its jurisdiction by granting a writ in every application for writ of habeas corpus. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Houstongreen2 sentences2016See Guinn v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 509 , 228 S.W. 233, 234 (1921) (following Lambert); Ex parte Smallwood, 87 Tex.Crim. 268 , 221 S.W. 293, 293 (1920) (citing Lambert); Ex parte Houston, 87 Tex.Crim. 8 , 219 S.W. 826, 826 (1920) (quoting Ex parte Alderete, 83 Tex.Crim. 358 , 203 S.W. 763, 764 (1918) ("It does not follow that the Court of Criminal Appeals will exercise its jurisdiction by granting a writ in every application for writ of habeas corpus. 2016See Guinn v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 509 , 228 S.W. 233, 234 (1921) (following Lambert); Ex parte Smallwood, 87 Tex.Crim. 268 , 221 S.W. 293, 293 (1920) (citing Lambert); Ex parte Houston, 87 Tex.Crim. 8 , 219 S.W. 826, 826 (1920) (quoting Ex parte Alderete, 83 Tex.Crim. 358 , 203 S.W. 763, 764 (1918) ("It does not follow that the Court of Criminal Appeals will exercise its jurisdiction by granting a writ in every application for writ of habeas corpus. | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Smallwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Alderetegreen2 sentences2016See Guinn v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 509 , 228 S.W. 233, 234 (1921) (following Lambert); Ex parte Smallwood, 87 Tex.Crim. 268 , 221 S.W. 293, 293 (1920) (citing Lambert); Ex parte Houston, 87 Tex.Crim. 8 , 219 S.W. 826, 826 (1920) (quoting Ex parte Alderete, 83 Tex.Crim. 358 , 203 S.W. 763, 764 (1918) ("It does not follow that the Court of Criminal Appeals will exercise its jurisdiction by granting a writ in every application for writ of habeas corpus. 2016See Guinn v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 509 , 228 S.W. 233, 234 (1921) (following Lambert); Ex parte Smallwood, 87 Tex.Crim. 268 , 221 S.W. 293, 293 (1920) (citing Lambert); Ex parte Houston, 87 Tex.Crim. 8 , 219 S.W. 826, 826 (1920) (quoting Ex parte Alderete, 83 Tex.Crim. 358 , 203 S.W. 763, 764 (1918) ("It does not follow that the Court of Criminal Appeals will exercise its jurisdiction by granting a writ in every application for writ of habeas corpus. | 1 | 1 |
| Shiflet v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| William Edward England v. Deborah Carol Englandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robinson v. Risingergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 681 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ). 2006Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 681 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ). | 3 | 2006–2006 |
In Re AVPG
green
2 sentences2018Thus, a court hearing this type of Hague Convention claim “has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim.” Id. (quoting A.V.P.G., 251 S.W.3d at 122 ). 10 Here, Jorgen argues that the trial court erred in denying his Hague Convention claims because (a) Sweden, not the U.S., was Elin’s habitual residence, and (b) the trial court erred in concluding that Jorgen consented to Elin’s removal because Fahimeh did not specifically plead Article 13 of the Hague Convention as an affirmative defense. 2018Thus, a court hearing this type of Hague Convention claim “has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim.” Id. (quoting A.V.P.G., 251 S.W.3d at 122 ). 10 Here, Jorgen argues that the trial court erred in denying his Hague Convention claims because (a) Sweden, not the U.S., was Elin’s habitual residence, and (b) the trial court erred in concluding that Jorgen consented to Elin’s removal because Fahimeh did not specifically plead Article 13 of the Hague Convention as an affirmative defense. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
2 sentences1997Bengivenga adopted the more flexible “reasonable person” test, factoring out the earlier test. 845 F.2d at 596 ; 4 see also Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (announcing that the only relevant custody inquiry is whether a reasonable person would have understood that he was under arrest and disavowing significance of whether police had probable cause to arrest). 1997Bengivenga adopted the more flexible “reasonable person” test, factoring out the earlier test. 845 F.2d at 596 ; 4 see also Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (announcing that the only relevant custody inquiry is whether a reasonable person would have understood that he was under arrest and disavowing significance of whether police had probable cause to arrest). | 2 | 1997–2012 |
Waltenburg v. Waltenburg
green
2 sentences2011He also cites Waltenburg , a Dallas Court of Appeals case holding that “a court in a state that has adopted the UCCJEA cannot exercise jurisdiction over a custody claim asserted regarding an unborn child.” 270 S.W.3d at 318 . 2011He also cites Waltenburg , a Dallas Court of Appeals case holding that “a court in a state that has adopted the UCCJEA cannot exercise jurisdiction over a custody claim asserted regarding an unborn child.” 270 S.W.3d at 318 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Lops v. Lops
green
2 sentences2010A court hearing a Hague Convention petition under the HCCAICA “has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim.” Id. (citing Blondin v. Dubois , 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir. 1999)). 2010A court hearing a Hague Convention petition under the HCCAICA “has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim.” Id. (citing Blondín v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir.1999)). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Tate v. State
green
1 sentence2019We overrule Marks’ first issue. 19 Id. at 414 (quoting Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12) 10 Chain of Custody In issue two, Marks argues that the State failed to sufficiently tie him to the hydromorphone discovered in the package of cigarettes because Charisa, who he claims had the opportunity to tamper with the package, had the package in her possession before she gave it to the police. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Evans v. State
green
1 sentence2019We overrule Marks’ first issue. 19 Id. at 414 (quoting Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.12) 10 Chain of Custody In issue two, Marks argues that the State failed to sufficiently tie him to the hydromorphone discovered in the package of cigarettes because Charisa, who he claims had the opportunity to tamper with the package, had the package in her possession before she gave it to the police. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Taylor v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services
green
1 sentence2017Taylor v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641 , 652-53 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| CADLE COMPANY v. Bankston & Lobingier green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Mary Dangerfield Bengivenga green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Hemingway v. Robertson green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.