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 2005–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
S&S Emergency Training Solutions, Inc. D/B/A Emergency Medical Training Services v. Sheila Elliottgreen1 sentence2022Id. §§ 27.003(a), 27.005(b); see S & S Emergency Training Sols., Inc. v. Elliott, 564 S.W.3d 843, 847 (Tex. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Brendlin v. Californiagreen2 sentences2019It follows, then, that, if the encounter is not a seizure, the citizen has the “option to ignore the [officer’s] request.” Id. 5 In addition, even if we interpreted the evidence as supporting Wilkins’ claim that he tried to terminate the encounter—so that Alexander’s action in stopping him converted the encounter into a detention—the trial court found that, by the time the vehicle moved, Alexander had observed the following information: (1) that Wilkins was the sole occupant of the vehicle; (2) that the engine of Wilkins’ vehicle was running; (3) that the windows of Wilkins’ vehicle were rolle 2019App. 2011) (holding that, “[i]f it was an option to ignore the [officer’s] request . . . , then a Fourth Amendment seizure has not occurred.”) (citing Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255 (2007)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodardgreen1 sentence2019Consequently, the record does not support Wilkins’ claim that he attempted to terminate the interview. 2 See State v. Woodward, 341 S.W.3d 404, 411 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
City of Alamo v. Casasgreen2 sentences2015See City that the trial court's judgment should order pre-judgment of Alamo v. Casas, 960 S.W.2d 240, 260 (Tex.App.-Corpus interest to accrue from November 17, 1994 (which reflects six Christi 1997, pet. denied). months after the date of the alleged “occurrence,” May 20, 1994). c. 2015See City that the trial court's judgment should order pre-judgment of Alamo v. Casas, 960 S.W.2d 240, 260 (Tex.App.-Corpus interest to accrue from November 17, 1994 (which reflects six Christi 1997, pet. denied). months after the date of the alleged “occurrence,” May 20, 1994). c. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care System
green
1 sentence2021In an illustrative example, the Supreme Court of Texas stated in Wilkins that “the trial court wiped the slate clean when it granted Wilkins’s motion for new trial; it is as though the court’s first order granting summary judgment never existed.” Wilkins, 160 S.W.3d at 563 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care System
green
2 sentences2005The issue here is whether Wilkins’s motion for new trial, which was filed in response to the trial court’s first judgment and granted before the second judgment was rendered, should be treated as prematurely filed with respect to the subsequent judgment and extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. 1 The court of appeals held that it should and that the notice of *562 appeal was timely filed. 108 S.W.3d at 568 . 2005Id. at 568 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.