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.
5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clayton v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778 . | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Henderson, 29 S.W.3d at 622–23; see also Adams v. State, 156 S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (evidence that defendant “was speeding, had alcohol on his breath, exhibited all six clues on the on the HGN test, four clues out of eight on the walk-and-turn test, and one clue on the one-leg stand test,” as well as “intoxication levels of .09 and .094” reflected on tests administered fifty-four minutes after the traffic stop was sufficient to establish intoxication); Holt v. State, 195 S.W.3d 795 , 796–97 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, no pet.) (police officer’s opinion that defendant | 1 | 1 |
Kuciemba v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Kuciemba, 310 S.W.3d at 463 (“Finally, the high-blood alcohol level — more than twice the legal limit — found in a sample taken at the scene, supports an inference either that appellant was recently involved in the accident or that he had been intoxicated for quite a while. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2011As a threshold matter, we note appellant‟s additional contention on remand that “[t]he evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction for DWI because the trial court should have excluded the evidence of the blood serum test results performed by Trinity Hospital.” We reject this legal sufficiency contention because “all evidence admitted at trial — including improperly admitted evidence — is considered in a legal sufficiency review.” Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bigon v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 366-68 (analyzing blood-alcohol concentration using the hospital’s blood-serum analysis and converting the results into whole-blood analysis terminology); Morris v. State, 214 S.W.3d 159, 175-77 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, pet. granted) (assessing the reliability of blood-test results from Kodak Etchakem 750 in hospital’s blood-serum test); Garcia v. State, No. 08-03-00351-CR, 2005 WL 1488384 , at *4-5 (Tex.App.-El Paso June 23, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (assessing reliability of blood-test results from LX-20 chemical analyzer in hospital’s blood-ser | 1 | 1 |
Reidweg v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 366-68 (analyzing blood-alcohol concentration using the hospital’s blood-serum analysis and converting the results into whole-blood analysis terminology); Morris v. State, 214 S.W.3d 159, 175-77 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, pet. granted) (assessing the reliability of blood-test results from Kodak Etchakem 750 in hospital’s blood-serum test); Garcia v. State, No. 08-03-00351-CR, 2005 WL 1488384 , at *4-5 (Tex.App.-El Paso June 23, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (assessing reliability of blood-test results from LX-20 chemical analyzer in hospital’s blood-ser | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 366-68 (analyzing blood-alcohol concentration using the hospital’s blood-serum analysis and converting the results into whole-blood analysis terminology); Morris v. State, 214 S.W.3d 159, 175-77 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, pet. granted) (assessing the reliability of blood-test results from Kodak Etchakem 750 in hospital’s blood-serum test); Garcia v. State, No. 08-03-00351-CR, 2005 WL 1488384 , at *4-5 (Tex.App.-El Paso June 23, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (assessing reliability of blood-test results from LX-20 chemical analyzer in hospital’s blood-ser | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Masongreen1 sentence2008See United States v. Kent, No. 4:06-CR-42, 2007 WL 1752305 , at *1-2 (M.D.Ga.2007) (not designated for publication) (admitting blood-test results from Dade Dimension Analyzer); United States v. Mason, 143 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1242-45 (D.Colo.2001) (admitting blood-test results from Dade Dimension Analyzer). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beeman v. State
green
1 sentence2015The error affected Appellant’s substantial rights. ................................. 35 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 37 Certificate of Service ................................................................................................ 38 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 38 2 List of Authorities Cases: Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Holt v. State
neutral
1 sentence2013Henderson, 29 S.W.3d at 622–23; see also Adams v. State, 156 S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (evidence that defendant “was speeding, had alcohol on his breath, exhibited all six clues on the on the HGN test, four clues out of eight on the walk-and-turn test, and one clue on the one-leg stand test,” as well as “intoxication levels of .09 and .094” reflected on tests administered fifty-four minutes after the traffic stop was sufficient to establish intoxication); Holt v. State, 195 S.W.3d 795 , 796–97 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, no pet.) (police officer’s opinion that defendant | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Henderson v. State
green
1 sentence2013Henderson, 29 S.W.3d at 622–23; see also Adams v. State, 156 S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (evidence that defendant “was speeding, had alcohol on his breath, exhibited all six clues on the on the HGN test, four clues out of eight on the walk-and-turn test, and one clue on the one-leg stand test,” as well as “intoxication levels of .09 and .094” reflected on tests administered fifty-four minutes after the traffic stop was sufficient to establish intoxication); Holt v. State, 195 S.W.3d 795 , 796–97 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, no pet.) (police officer’s opinion that defendant | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the trial court should have excluded the hospital‟s blood serum test results from evidence because (1) the manufacturer of the hospital‟s testing machine designated that it was to be used for therapeutic rather than forensic purposes; (2) the State failed to establish reliability of the results as required under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kelly v. State
green
1 sentence2011ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the trial court should have excluded the hospital‟s blood serum test results from evidence because (1) the manufacturer of the hospital‟s testing machine designated that it was to be used for therapeutic rather than forensic purposes; (2) the State failed to establish reliability of the results as required under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.