Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
42 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
4M Linen & Uniform Supply Co., Inc. v. WP Ballard & Co.green2 sentences2008P. Ballard & Co., Inc., 793 S.W.2d 320, 323 (Tex.App.--Houston [1 st Dist.] 1990, writ denied). 2005P. Ballard & Co., Inc., 793 S.W.2d 320, 323 (Tex.App.--Houston [1 st Dist.] 1990, writ denied). | 12 | 12 |
Love v. Stategreen2 sentences2008It has been stated that "an informal bill of exception will suffice as an offer of proof when it includes a concise statement of counsel's belief of what the testimony would show." Love v. State , 861 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). 2005It has been stated that "an informal bill of exception will suffice as an offer of proof when it includes a concise statement of counsel's belief of what the testimony would show." Love v. State , 861 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). | 12 | 12 |
Spivey v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2008See also Spivey v. James , 1 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd). 2. 2005See also Spivey v. James , 1 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd). 2. | 10 | 10 |
Fletcher v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2025Co., 57 S.W.3d 602, 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)). 2020“Texas recognizes two types of offers to preserve error: the offer of proof (formerly referred to as an informal bill of exception) and the formal bill of exception.” Fletcher, 57 S.W.3d at 606 . | 3 | 4 |
In Re Estate of Millergreen2 sentences2015App. P. 33.2; see also In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 837-38 (Tex.App-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (an offer of proof formerly was referred to as an informal bill of exception). - ’ . “[T]here are two distinct scenarios in which rulings excluding evidence might rise to the level of a constitutional violation: 1) a state evidentiary rule which categorically and arbitrarily prohibits the defendant from offering otherwise relevant, reliable evidence which is vital to his defense; and 2) a trial court’s clearly erroneous ruling excluding otherwise relevant, reliable evidence which forms such a v 2015App. P. 33.2; see also In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 837-38 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (an offer of proof formerly was referred to as an informal bill of exception). 13 testified to the fact that she personally, while living with [Diles] and [Castillo] personally witnessed [Diles] in a very violent nature abuse [Castillo] . . . drag her downstairs, that when they would try to take him off of her that he would pull patches of hair out of her head such that now she has to wear a wig and that she witnessed, in fact, where [Castillo] would call [appellant] to come pick her up after | 3 | 3 |
Lone Starr Multi-Theatres, Ltd. v. Max Interests, Ltd.green2 sentences2018See Lone Starr Multi-Theatres, Ltd. v. Max Interests, Ltd., 365 S.W.3d 688, 703 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see also Tex. R. 2012Preservation of Johnson’s Complaint “There are two types of offers to preserve error: the offer of proof (formerly referred to as an informal bill of exception) and the formal bill of exception.” Lone Starr Multi-Theatres, Ltd. v. Max Interests, Ltd., 365 S.W.3d 688, 703 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Wiley v. Stategreen1 sentence2015App. P. 33.2; see also In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 837-38 (Tex.App-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (an offer of proof formerly was referred to as an informal bill of exception). - ’ . “[T]here are two distinct scenarios in which rulings excluding evidence might rise to the level of a constitutional violation: 1) a state evidentiary rule which categorically and arbitrarily prohibits the defendant from offering otherwise relevant, reliable evidence which is vital to his defense; and 2) a trial court’s clearly erroneous ruling excluding otherwise relevant, reliable evidence which forms such a v | 1 | 1 |
Patteson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Patteson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 549, 551 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ) (trial court’s statement on the record at a hearing on a motion for new trial “can serve as an informal bill of exception on the subject”). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1982See also, Smith v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 79 , 353 S.W.2d 456 (1962). 7 Although Judge Woodley authored the opinion in Kinnebrew , he disagreed with Judges Morrison and Davidson’s conclusions that error had been properly perfected for review. 1982See also, Smith v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 79 , 353 S.W.2d 456 (1962). 7 Although Judge Woodley authored the opinion in Kinnebrew , he disagreed with Judges Morrison and Davidson’s conclusions that error had been properly perfected for review. | 1 | 1 |
Kinnebrew v. Stategreen2 sentences1982See, for example, Kinnebrew v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 198 , 324 S.W.2d 554 (1959), where a majority of this Court held that the jury argument of the prosecuting attorney was properly before this Court by way of an informal bill of exception, “... an informal bill of exception to argument may be reserved in a statement of facts.” Kinnebrew, Id., 324 S.W.2d at p. 556 . 1982See, for example, Kinnebrew v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 198 , 324 S.W.2d 554 (1959), where a majority of this Court held that the jury argument of the prosecuting attorney was properly before this Court by way of an informal bill of exception, “... an informal bill of exception to argument may be reserved in a statement of facts.” Kinnebrew, Id., 324 S.W.2d at p. 556 . | 1 | 1 |
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardellgreen1 sentence1979See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. McCardell, 369 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.Sup.1963). | 1 | 1 |
Hardin v. Stategreen2 sentences1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr. 1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). | 1 | 1 |
| Eldredge v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. State
green
2 sentences1965Lopez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 672 , 352 S.W.2d 747 ; Lacy v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 220 , 325 S.W.2d 392 ; Crawford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 147 , 305 S.W.2d 362 . 1965Lopez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 672 , 352 S.W.2d 747 ; Lacy v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 220 , 325 S.W.2d 392 ; Crawford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 147 , 305 S.W.2d 362 . | 3 | 1960–1965 |
Brooks v. State
neutral
2 sentences1965While the order of the Court overruling appellant’s motion to quash does not show an exception by appellant to the court’s ruling, as required by Art. 760e, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., to constitute an informal bill of exception under such article, Brooks v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 555 , 342 S.W.2d 439 , we have nevertheless examined the indictment in the light of appellant’s objections thereto. 1965While the order of the Court overruling appellant’s motion to quash does not show an exception by appellant to the court’s ruling, as required by Art. 760e, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., to constitute an informal bill of exception under such article, Brooks v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 555 , 342 S.W.2d 439 , we have nevertheless examined the indictment in the light of appellant’s objections thereto. | 2 | 1965–1965 |
Redding v. State
green
2 sentences1962Redding v. State, 161 Tex. Cr. 1956Redding v. State, 161 Tex. Cr. | 2 | 1956–1962 |
Matter of Marriage of Goodwin
green
2 sentences1990On second motion for rehearing, appellant claims the error was harmful. 4M Linen refers us to In re Marriage of Goodwin, 562 S.W.2d 532 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1978, no writ); Ledisco Fin. 1990On second motion for rehearing, appellant claims the error was harmful. 4M Linen refers us to In re Marriage of Goodwin, 562 S.W.2d 532 (Tex.Civ.App.— Texarkana 1978, no writ); Ledisco Fin. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences1987According to Art. 40.-09(6)(d)(1), V.A.C.C.P., if the court refuses to admit into evidence offered testimony one is authorized to "adduce the excluded testimony ... before the reporter, and a transcription of his notes showing such testimony... and any objections and exceptions of the party offering same, shall, when certified to by the reporter, and included in the record, establish the nature of such testimony ... and no bills of exception shall be essential to authorize appellate review of the question whether the court erred in excluding such testimony...." Id. 1987According to Art. 40.-09(6)(d)(l), V.A.C.C.P., if the court refuses to admit into evidence offered testimony one is authorized to “adduce the excluded testimony ... before the reporter, and a transcription of his notes showing such testimony ... and any objections and exceptions of the party offering same, shall, when certified to by the reporter, and included in the record, establish the nature of such testimony ... and no bills of exception shall be essential to authorize appellate review of the question whether the court erred in excluding such testimo-ny_” Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Seefurth v. State
green
1 sentence1982Though our research concerning this Court’s interpretation of Art. 36.20, Id., has not revealed a single case exactly in point to our facts, nevertheless, in Livingston v. State, 531 S.W.2d 821 (1976), a case decided subsequent to the enactment of Art. 40.09, supra, this Court considered a claim of improper jury argument by the prosecuting attorney where the record on appeal only reflected a partial transcription of the court reporter’s notes of the prosecuting attorney’s jury argument The Court, in its opinion, pointed out the following: While the argument of counsel was not originally transc | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Livingston v. State
green
1 sentence1982Though our research concerning this Court’s interpretation of Art. 36.20, Id., has not revealed a single case exactly in point to our facts, nevertheless, in Livingston v. State, 531 S.W.2d 821 (1976), a case decided subsequent to the enactment of Art. 40.09, supra, this Court considered a claim of improper jury argument by the prosecuting attorney where the record on appeal only reflected a partial transcription of the court reporter’s notes of the prosecuting attorney’s jury argument The Court, in its opinion, pointed out the following: While the argument of counsel was not originally transc | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Roviaro v. United States
green
2 sentences1977The facts are sufficient to bring the case within the holdings of Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), and James v. State, 493 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). 1977The facts are sufficient to bring the case within the holdings of Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), and James v. State, 493 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Sims v. State
green
1 sentence1977Boykin v. State, 516 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Roberts v. State, supra. In our recent decision in Sims v. State, 546 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), we held that the evidence presented at the hearing on an untimely motion for new trial would be treated as an informal bill of exception. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Gasery v. State
green
1 sentence1977“It is only where the entire statement of the prosecutor is contained within the statement of facts that this Court will consider informal bills of exception brought forward thereby.” Gasery v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 465 S.W.2d 377, 378 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
James v. State
green
2 sentences1977The facts are sufficient to bring the case within the holdings of Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), and James v. State, 493 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). 1977The facts are sufficient to bring the case within the holdings of Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), and James v. State, 493 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Boykin v. State
green
1 sentence1977Boykin v. State, 516 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Roberts v. State, supra. In our recent decision in Sims v. State, 546 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), we held that the evidence presented at the hearing on an untimely motion for new trial would be treated as an informal bill of exception. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Jefferson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
DeLeon v. State
green
2 sentences1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr. 1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Mills v. State
neutral
1 sentence1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Barber v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Hall v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Nutt v. State
neutral
2 sentences1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). 1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Sheldon v. State
green
1 sentence1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Stephen v. State
green
2 sentences1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). 1975See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); DeLeon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Stockton v. State, 487 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Sheldon v. State, 510 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mills v. State, 455 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jefferson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Barber v. State, 477 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Nutt v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 9 , 161 S.W.2d 103 (1942); and Stephen v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 505 , 293 S.W.2d 789 (1956). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Stockton v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Hughes v. State neutral | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Flores v. State neutral | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Lacy v. State neutral | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Chapman v. State neutral | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Lopez v. State green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Johnson v. State neutral | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Beeler v. State neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Sessions v. State green | 1 | 1957–1957 |