Castro motion (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Castro motion in Texas

5 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2023 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Burch, Dan Dalegreen
texcrimapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021See Burch, 541 S.W.3d at 820 .

2021See Burch, 541 S.W.3d at 820 .

11
Evitts v. Luceygreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 392 (1985) (noting that Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution guarantees defendant pursuing direct appeal “certain minimum safeguards necessary to make appeal ‘adequate and effective’”). 30 A reasonable view of the record supports the district court’s denial of Castro’s motion for new trial complaining of destruction of the voir dire record; thus, that ruling was not outside the zone of reasonable disagreement.

11
Phillips v. Phillipsgreen
texapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019See Phillips v. Phillips, 296 S.W.3d 656, 670 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009, pet. denied)(“To determine whether the issue was tried by consent, the court must examine the record not for evidence of the issue, but rather for evidence of trial of the issue.”).

11
Elbaor v. Smithgreen
tex · 1993 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994We overrule appellant’s points four and five and affirm the judgment as to “discharge”; we overrule appellant’s third point and we sustain appellant’s first two points and reverse and remand as to the issue of “discrimination.” DISCRIMINATION Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278, governing the trial court’s submission of questions, instructions and definitions “provides a substantive, non-discretionary directive to trial courts requiring them to submit requested questions to the jury if the pleadings and any evidence supports them.” Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 243 (Tex.1992); see also Tex.R.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
\ Y\" PROPANE SERVICE green
· 2001
1 sentence

2023Cf. Moore v. Altra Energy Tech., Inc., 321 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (rendering judgment on a claim that was supported by legally insufficient evidence and remanding the remainder of the case for a new trial after concluding that trial court erred in finding antagonism among the appellants’ opposing parties); “Y” Propane Serv., Inc. v. Garcia, 61 S.W.3d 559 , 564–70 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (denying appellant’s legal sufficiency challenge and then remanding case for a new trial after concluding that trial court erred in finding no antagonism bet

12023–2023
Moore v. Altra Energy Technologies, Inc. green
texapp · 2010
1 sentence

2023Cf. Moore v. Altra Energy Tech., Inc., 321 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (rendering judgment on a claim that was supported by legally insufficient evidence and remanding the remainder of the case for a new trial after concluding that trial court erred in finding antagonism among the appellants’ opposing parties); “Y” Propane Serv., Inc. v. Garcia, 61 S.W.3d 559 , 564–70 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (denying appellant’s legal sufficiency challenge and then remanding case for a new trial after concluding that trial court erred in finding no antagonism bet

12023–2023
March v. Walker green
tex · 1877
2 sentences

1973If, as in the case of March v. Walker, supra , the proof by Southern Pacific also includes some evidence that Castro's violation was excused by reason of one of the permissible excuses we discussed in Impson, supra ; or if the plaintiffs produce some evidence of an Impson-type permissible excuse, Southern Pacific must do something more to discharge its burden of persuasion.

1973If, as in the case of March v. Walker, supra, the proof by Southern Pacific also includes some evidence that Castro’s violation was excused by reason of one of the permissible excuses we discussed in Impson, supra; or if the plaintiffs produce some evidence of an Impson-type permissible excuse, Southern Pacific must do something more to discharge its burden of persuasion.

11973–1973
Impson v. Structural Metals, Inc. green
tex · 1972
2 sentences

1973If, as in the case of March v. Walker, supra , the proof by Southern Pacific also includes some evidence that Castro's violation was excused by reason of one of the permissible excuses we discussed in Impson, supra ; or if the plaintiffs produce some evidence of an Impson-type permissible excuse, Southern Pacific must do something more to discharge its burden of persuasion.

1973If, as in the case of March v. Walker, supra, the proof by Southern Pacific also includes some evidence that Castro’s violation was excused by reason of one of the permissible excuses we discussed in Impson, supra; or if the plaintiffs produce some evidence of an Impson-type permissible excuse, Southern Pacific must do something more to discharge its burden of persuasion.

11973–1973

Where else courts name it

CA 42 (1981–2026) TX 5 (1973–2023) NY 4 (1991–2024) FL 4 (2001–2018) CO 4 (1994–2026) PA 3 (2014–2026) MS 3 (1992–2004) OR 2 (1982–2008) LA 2 (2016–2024) IL 2 (1994–2021) NM 2 (1992–1995) AZ 2 (1982–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check