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 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
DeMoss v. Stategreen2 sentences2004P. 33.1(a); Strauss, 121 S.W.3d at 490 (finding that appellant’s failure to raise an issue during the hearing on his motion to suppress, although raised in his written motion, was waived); Cf. DeMoss, 12 S.W.3d at 556 (finding issue raised in previous motion to suppress preserved because reasserted argument in hearing on second motion and previous motion brought forward). 2004App. P. 33.1(a); Strauss , 121 S.W.3d at 490 (finding that appellant = s failure to raise an issue during the hearing on his motion to suppress, although raised in his written motion, was waived); Cf. DeMoss , 12 S.W.3d at 556 (finding issue raised in previous motion to suppress preserved because reasserted argument in hearing on second motion and previous motion brought forward). | 2 | 2 |
Strauss v. Stategreen2 sentences2004P. 33.1(a); Strauss, 121 S.W.3d at 490 (finding that appellant’s failure to raise an issue during the hearing on his motion to suppress, although raised in his written motion, was waived); Cf. DeMoss, 12 S.W.3d at 556 (finding issue raised in previous motion to suppress preserved because reasserted argument in hearing on second motion and previous motion brought forward). 2004App. P. 33.1(a); Strauss , 121 S.W.3d at 490 (finding that appellant = s failure to raise an issue during the hearing on his motion to suppress, although raised in his written motion, was waived); Cf. DeMoss , 12 S.W.3d at 556 (finding issue raised in previous motion to suppress preserved because reasserted argument in hearing on second motion and previous motion brought forward). | 2 | 2 |
In Re EWgreen1 sentence2025See In re E.W., 170 Cal. App. 4th at 404–05 (stating implicit finding sufficient “at least as long as the reviewing court can be confident that the [trial] court considered the issue and there is no question but that an explicit ruling would conform to the implicit one”). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Cf. Foster, 326 S.W.3d at 614 (determining that trial court’s ruling denying motion to suppress should be upheld, in part, given time of night at which traffic stop occurred, location near bar district, and defendant’s erratic driving). | 1 | 1 |
Zuniga v. Zunigagreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Zuniga v. Zuniga, 664 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1984, no writ). | 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.