223 Texas opinions name it 6 courts 1908–2026 32 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cobb v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In probation revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving a violation of the terms of probation by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64 ; Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. 2009Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).  The State bears the burden of proving a violation of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence.  Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).  ÂÂPreponderance of the evidence has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318 , 320 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2003, no pet.) ( citing Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935)).  Evidence supporting a finding the defendant violated even one condition of community supervision is ground for | 37 | 37 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. 2015Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. | 25 | 25 |
Torres, Ex Parte Manuelgreen2 sentences2025App. 2017); Orozco, 2018 WL 6629695 , at *4. (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel “An applicant for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus bears the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ex Parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35, 43 (Tex. Crim. 2025“An applicant for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus bears the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35, 43 (Tex. Crim. | 16 | 21 |
In Re Firstmerit Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2015Civil Procedure > ... > Alternative Dispute Resolution > Arbitration > General Overview Civil Procedure > Pretrial Matters > Alternative Dispute Resolution > Mandatory ADR Page 3 of 10 52 S.W.3d 749, *749 ; 2001 Tex. LEXIS 59 , **1 HN9 Since the law favors arbitration, the burden of proving a defense to arbitration is on the party opposing arbitration. 2015Civil Procedure > ... > Alternative Dispute Resolution > Arbitration > General Overview Civil Procedure > Pretrial Matters > Alternative Dispute Resolution > Mandatory ADR Page 3 of 10 52 S.W.3d 749, *749 ; 2001 Tex. LEXIS 59 , **1 HN9 Since the law favors arbitration, the burden of proving a defense to arbitration is on the party opposing arbitration. | 16 | 17 |
Rickels v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In probation revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving a violation of the terms of probation by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64 ; Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. 2009Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).  The State bears the burden of proving a violation of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence.  Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).  ÂÂPreponderance of the evidence has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318 , 320 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2003, no pet.) ( citing Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935)).  Evidence supporting a finding the defendant violated even one condition of community supervision is ground for | 8 | 27 |
IHS Acquisition No. 131, Inc. D/B/A Horizon Healthcare Center at El Paso v. Martha Iturraldegreen2 sentences2020IHS Acquisition No. 171, Inc. v. Beatty-Ortiz, 387 S.W.3d 799, 810 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.) (citing J.M. 2018IHS Acquisition No. 171, Inc. v. Beatty-Ortiz , 387 S.W.3d 799 , 807 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012, no pet.), citing J.M. | 5 | 7 |
Ex Parte Richardsongreen2 sentences2023Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d 865, 870 (Tex. Crim. 2019Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d at 43 (citing Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d 865, 870 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
McFarland v. Stategreen2 sentences2001McFarland v. State , 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. 2001McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Cannon v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ; Cannon v. State, 668 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Tex. Crim. 2015Cannon v. State, 668 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
State of Texas v. Guerrero, Ex Parte Marcelinogreen2 sentences2026Ex parte Salim, 595 S.W.3d 844 , 853 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576, 583 (Tex. Crim. 2024State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576, 583 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Hudson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Hudson v. State , 588 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). 2011See Hudson v. State, 588 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). | 4 | 4 |
Thomas v. Cornyngreen2 sentences2010See Abbott v. Texas Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation , 212 S.W.3d 648, 655 (Tex. App.--Austin 2006, no pet.); Thomas v. Cornyn , 71 S.W.3d 473, 488 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet.). 2010See Abbott v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 212 S.W.3d 648, 655 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.); Thomas v. Cornyn, 71 S.W.3d 473, 488 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). | 4 | 4 |
Abbott v. Texas Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardationgreen2 sentences2010See Abbott v. Texas Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation , 212 S.W.3d 648, 655 (Tex. App.--Austin 2006, no pet.); Thomas v. Cornyn , 71 S.W.3d 473, 488 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, no pet.). 2010See Abbott v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 212 S.W.3d 648, 655 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.); Thomas v. Cornyn, 71 S.W.3d 473, 488 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). | 4 | 4 |
Flores v. Robinson Roofing & Construction Co.green2 sentences2009See Flores v. Robinson Roofing & Const. Co. , 161 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied) (holding that burden of proving good faith rests on party invoking defense and that it is not appropriate basis for no-evidence summary judgment). 2009See Flores v. Robinson Roofing & Const. Co., 161 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied) (holding that burden of proving good faith rests on party invoking defense and that it is not appropriate basis for no-evidence summary judgment). | 4 | 4 |
Compton v. Elliottgreen2 sentences2009Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).  The State bears the burden of proving a violation of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence.  Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).  ÂÂPreponderance of the evidence has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318 , 320 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2003, no pet.) ( citing Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935)).  Evidence supporting a finding the defendant violated even one condition of community supervision is ground for 2009Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).  The State bears the burden of proving a violation of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence.  Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).  ÂÂPreponderance of the evidence has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318 , 320 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2003, no pet.) ( citing Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935)).  Evidence supporting a finding the defendant violated even one condition of community supervision is ground for | 3 | 3 |
Royston, Rayzor, Vickery, & Williams, Llp v. Francisco \Frank\" Lopez"green2 sentences2026Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP v. Lopez, 467 S.W.3d 494 , 499–500 (Tex. 2015); Pounds v. Rohe, 592 S.W.3d 549 , 554 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). 2025Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP v. Lopez, 467 S.W.3d 494 , 499–500 (Tex. 2015); Pounds v. Rohe, 592 S.W.3d 549 , 554 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). | 2 | 8 |
Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., Inc.green2 sentences2015Simon v. York Crane & Rigging seats, floor, and walls of the restroom, booths, and Co., Inc., 739 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1987); Brockette, theater. 1999Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., Inc., 739 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.1987); Brockette, 675 S.W.2d at 809 . | 2 | 3 |
Martinez, Roger Anthonygreen2 sentences2022See State v. Martinez, 569 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tex. Crim. 2021See State v. Martinez, 569 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Saxton v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. 2015Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson Engineers, Inc. v. Tri-Water Supply Corp.green2 sentences2015Johnson Engineers, Inc. v. Tri-Water [**11] Supply Corp., 582 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tex. Civ. 1989Johnson Engineers, Inc. v. Tri-Water Supply Corp., 582 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1979, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Poly-America, L.P.green2 sentences2015Once met, the burden shifts to ″the party seeking arbitration [who] must [**28] come forward with contrary evidence.″ Id.; see also Poly-America, 262 S.W.3d at 348 (″The burden of proving such a ground--such as fraud, unconscionability or voidness under public policy--falls on the party opposing the contract.″); FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d at 756 (″Again, since the law favors arbitration, the burden of proving a defense to arbitration is on the party opposing arbitration.″). 2010Once met, the burden shifts to “the party seeking arbitration [who] must come forward with contrary evidence.” Id.; see also Poly-America, 262 S.W.3d at 348 (“The burden of proving such a ground — such as fraud, unconscionability or voidness under public policy — falls on the party opposing the contract.”); First-Merit Bank, 52 S.W.3d at 756 (“Again, since the law favors arbitration, the burden of proving a defense to arbitration is on the party opposing arbitration.”). | 2 | 2 |
In Re USA Waste Management Resources, L.L.C.green2 sentences2015Res., 387 S.W.3d at 98 (holding that the requesting party “bears the burden of proving this exception” and “[m]ere allegations of fraud are insufficient”) (emphasis added). 2015See In re USA Waste Management Resources, L.L.C., 387 S.W.3d 92, 98 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding)(“The party seeking discovery of an otherwise privileged communication bears the burden of proving this exception.”). | 2 | 2 |
In Re AdvancePCS Health L.P.green2 sentences2011See AdvancePCS Health , 172 S.W.3d at 607 (declaring that party opposing arbitration does not bear burden of establishing defense to enforcement until after valid agreement to arbitrate is established). 2011See AdvancePCS Health, 172 S.W.3d at 607 (declaring that party opposing arbitration does not bear burden of establishing defense to enforcement until after valid agreement to arbitrate is established). | 2 | 2 |
| Hailey v. Haileygreen | 2 | 2 |
| Boyd v. Boydgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Cofield v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Jordan v. Honorable Court of Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial Districtgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Rossgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Carmona v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Madison v. Gordongreen2 sentences2025Madison, 39 S.W.3d at 606 ; Glass v. Upton, 226 S.W.2d 244 , 245–46 (Tex. App.—Austin 1950, no writ) (reversing where jury instruction improperly shifted the burden of proving the defense). 2019A buyer’s status as a bona fide purchaser is an affirmative defense, Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Tex. 2001), and a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of proving the defense, Storck v. Tres Lagos Prop. | 1 | 2 |
Ex Parte Cristela GARCIA, Appelleegreen2 sentences2020DIAMOND — 18 record.29 But in other (non-death) habeas cases, the trial judge is the sole fact finder.30 The court of appeals and this Court are truly appellate courts.31 We have less leeway in these cases to disregard the habeas court’s findings.32 BRADY CLAIM An applicant for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus bears the burden of proving her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.33 To demonstrate that she is entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of reversible error under Brady, a habeas applicant must show that (1) the State failed to disclose evidence, regardless of the pr 2020DIAMOND — 18 record.29 But in other (non-death) habeas cases, the trial judge is the sole fact finder.30 The court of appeals and this Court are truly appellate courts.31 We have less leeway in these cases to disregard the habeas court’s findings.32 BRADY CLAIM An applicant for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus bears the burden of proving her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.33 To demonstrate that she is entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of reversible error under Brady, a habeas applicant must show that (1) the State failed to disclose evidence, regardless of the pr | 1 | 2 |
O'NEAL v. McAninchgreen2 sentences2015O'Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 437 , 15 S.Ct. 992 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995). 1996See O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 , 115 S.Ct. 992 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995). .Judge Maloney's dissenting opinion argues that footnote 9 of Brecht exempts some "especially egregious” trial errors from a harmless error analysis. | 1 | 2 |
| Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. La Villa Independent School Districtgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Mendez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| First Ala. Bank of Montgomery, NA v. Martingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dow Chemical Co. v. Francisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fletcher v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miles, Ex Parte Richard Ray Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ex parte Lalondegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vallone v. Vallone
green
2 sentences2020Vallone, 644 S.W.2d at 459 . 2003Vallone , 644 S.W.2d at 459 . | 4 | 2003–2020 |
In Re TRS
green
2 sentences2010Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). `"Preponderance of the evidence' has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony." In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318 , 320 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2003, no pet.) (citing Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935)). 2009Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).  The State bears the burden of proving a violation of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence.  Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).  ÂÂPreponderance of the evidence has been defined as the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318 , 320 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2003, no pet.) ( citing Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91, 95 (1935)).  Evidence supporting a finding the defendant violated even one condition of community supervision is ground for | 3 | 2009–2010 |
Perry Homes v. Cull
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 590 . 2014Id. at 590 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Samudio v. State
green
2 sentences2014Rather, we first look to the State’s proof of a valid judgment to determine whether the State has presented evidence that is entitled to a presumption of regularity. 37 If it has, the burden shifts to the party challenging the validity of the alleged prior conviction. 38 If the evidence offered is not entitled to a presumption of regularity, or if the evidence does not state whether there has been waiver, the burden does not shift but remains with the proponent of the evidence. 39 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explained the interplay between the presumption of regularity and the burd 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2014 |
| Brockette v. Sosa green | 2 | 1990–1999 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Glass v. Upton green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Ruffin v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Mendez v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In Re AEP Texas Central Co. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Ex Parte Aftab Ali green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Brecht v. Abrahamson green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Breazeale v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Republic Insurance v. Paico Receivables, LLC green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| In Re ENSCO Offshore International Co. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| In Re International Profit Associates, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Cantu v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.