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 1987–2008 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lozano v. Stategreen2 sentences2008The State counters that the addition of this superfluous phrase was isolated clerical error that does not require reversal, citing Lozano v. State, 676 S.W.2d 433, 436-37 (Tex. App.–San Antonio, 1984, no pet.) (providing that an inadvertent or clerical error in an instruction does not require reversal of a conviction where the charge as a whole correctly applies the law to the facts). 2008The State counters that the addition of this superfluous phrase was isolated clerical error that does not require reversal, citing Lozano v. State , 676 S.W.2d 433, 436-37 (Tex. App.-San Antonio, 1984, no pet.) (providing that an inadvertent or clerical error in an instruction does not require reversal of a conviction where the charge as a whole correctly applies the law to the facts). | 3 | 5 |
Ortega v. Stategreen2 sentences1991We agree with the Lozano holding and find that in viewing the charge as a whole, the instruction was surplusage and not a matter that ‘describes or explains an essential element of the offense charged.' See Ortega v. State, 668 S.W.2d 701, 704 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). 1987We agree with the Lozano holding and find that in viewing the charge as a whole, the instruction was surplusage and not a matter that “describes or explains an essential element of the offense charged.” See Ortega v. State, 668 S.W.2d 701, 704 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). | 2 | 2 |
Woods v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Lozano v. State, 676 S.W.2d 433, 437 (Tex.App.Waco 1984, no pet.); see also Woods v. State, 139 Tex.Crim. 631 , 141 S.W.2d 318, 318-19 (1940). 1999Lozano v. State, 676 S.W.2d 433, 437 (Tex.App.Waco 1984, no pet.); see also Woods v. State, 139 Tex.Crim. 631 , 141 S.W.2d 318, 318-19 (1940). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.