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 2 courts 2014–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Belmares, 2011 WL 5865236 , at *3; Saldivar v. State, 783 S.W.2d 265, 268 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, 13 no pet.); see also Jones v. State, 229 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (“[T]he intent of Jones in touching B.S.S., while it was a part of the State’s required proof, was not a contested issue and consequently Jones could not be egregiously harmed by the definition of the intentional and knowing state of mind.”) Considering the entire record, including the extensive evidence of appellant’s guilt, the application paragraphs in the jury charge, and the lack of a dispute 2015Belmares, 2011 WL 5865236 , at *3; Saldivar v. State, 783 S.W.2d 265, 268 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, 13 no pet.); see also Jones v. State, 229 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (“[T]he intent of Jones in touching B.S.S., while it was a part of the State’s required proof, was not a contested issue and consequently Jones could not be egregiously harmed by the definition of the intentional and knowing state of mind.”) Considering the entire record, including the extensive evidence of appellant’s guilt, the application paragraphs in the jury charge, and the lack of a dispute | 2 | 2 |
Saldivar v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Belmares, 2011 WL 5865236 , at *3; Saldivar v. State, 783 S.W.2d 265, 268 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, 13 no pet.); see also Jones v. State, 229 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (“[T]he intent of Jones in touching B.S.S., while it was a part of the State’s required proof, was not a contested issue and consequently Jones could not be egregiously harmed by the definition of the intentional and knowing state of mind.”) Considering the entire record, including the extensive evidence of appellant’s guilt, the application paragraphs in the jury charge, and the lack of a dispute 2015Belmares, 2011 WL 5865236 , at *3; Saldivar v. State, 783 S.W.2d 265, 268 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, 13 no pet.); see also Jones v. State, 229 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (“[T]he intent of Jones in touching B.S.S., while it was a part of the State’s required proof, was not a contested issue and consequently Jones could not be egregiously harmed by the definition of the intentional and knowing state of mind.”) Considering the entire record, including the extensive evidence of appellant’s guilt, the application paragraphs in the jury charge, and the lack of a dispute | 2 | 2 |
Trimble v. Itzgreen2 sentences2015See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 493 ; Belmares, 2011 WL 5865236 , at *3; Saldivar, 783 S.W.2d at 268 ; Jones, 229 S.W.3d at 494 . 2015See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 493 ; Belmares, 2011 WL 5865236 , at *3; Saldivar, 783 S.W.2d at 268 ; Jones, 229 S.W.3d at 494 . | 2 | 2 |
Herrera v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Herrera, 527 S.W.3d at 679 . | 1 | 1 |
Thrift v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Statered2 sentences2014Because Green properly objected to the definitions, we determine whether “the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure” his rights, i.e., whether there was “some harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 ; Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); see Tex.Code Crim. 2014Because Green properly objected to the definitions, we determine whether “the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure” his rights, i.e., whether there was “some harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 ; Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ngo v. State
green
2 sentences2014Because Green properly objected to the definitions, we determine whether “the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure” his rights, i.e., whether there was “some harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 ; Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); see Tex.Code Crim. 2014Because Green properly objected to the definitions, we determine whether “the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure” his rights, i.e., whether there was “some harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 ; Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.