36 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1993–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tong v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Even when making a novel argument that has no authority directly on point, an appellant must still “ground his contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim.” Chuong Duong Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. 2022App. P. 38.1(i)), and “[a] point of error that is improperly briefed presents nothing for review,” Leach v. State, 35 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.)). 14 Although Poulis may certainly make a novel argument “for which there is no authority directly on point,” he must “ground his contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim.” Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. | 31 | 33 |
Johnson v. Structured Asset Services, LLCgreen2 sentences2011Johnson v. Structured Asset Servs., LLC, 148 S.W.3d 711, 725 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.) (citing Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. 2011Johnson v. Structured Asset Servs., LLC , 148 S.W.3d 711, 725 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2004, no pet.) (citing Tong v. State , 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Swearingen v. Stategreen2 sentences2011P. 38.1(i); compare Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (an appellant must ground his novel contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim); see Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 100 ; Smith, 907 S.W.2d at 532 ; Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d at 466 . 2011App. P. 38.1(i); compare Tong v. State , 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (an appellant must ground his novel contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim); see Swearingen , 101 S.W.3d at 100 ; Smith , 907 S.W.2d at 532 ; Hernandez , 318 S.W.3d at 466 . | 2 | 2 |
Leach v. Stategreen1 sentence2022App. P. 38.1(i)), and “[a] point of error that is improperly briefed presents nothing for review,” Leach v. State, 35 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.)). 14 Although Poulis may certainly make a novel argument “for which there is no authority directly on point,” he must “ground his contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim.” Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Republic Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc.green1 sentence2015Co. v. Mex-Tex., Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004). 2 Tex. Transp. | 1 | 1 |
I.A.M. National Pension Fund Benefit Plan C and Alan W. Skolnick v. Stockton Tri Industriesgreen1 sentence1993Nat’l Pension Fund Benefit Plan C v. Stockton TRI Indus., 727 F.2d 1204, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1984) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abdelnour v. Mid National Holdings, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Abdelnour v. Mid Nat’l Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237 , 241–42 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). 2015Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237 , 241–42 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that even a novel argument must be grounded in the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating the claim) (citing Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2011P. 38.1(i); compare Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (an appellant must ground his novel contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim); see Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 100 ; Smith, 907 S.W.2d at 532 ; Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d at 466 . 2011App. P. 38.1(i); compare Tong v. State , 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (an appellant must ground his novel contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim); see Swearingen , 101 S.W.3d at 100 ; Smith , 907 S.W.2d at 532 ; Hernandez , 318 S.W.3d at 466 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Hernandez v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2011P. 38.1(i); compare Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (an appellant must ground his novel contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim); see Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 100 ; Smith, 907 S.W.2d at 532 ; Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d at 466 . 2011App. P. 38.1(i); compare Tong v. State , 25 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (an appellant must ground his novel contention in analogous case law or provide the Court with the relevant jurisprudential framework for evaluating his claim); see Swearingen , 101 S.W.3d at 100 ; Smith , 907 S.W.2d at 532 ; Hernandez , 318 S.W.3d at 466 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
McKart v. United States
green
2 sentences1993Nat’l Pension Fund Benefit Plan C v. Stockton TRI Indus., 727 F.2d 1204, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1984) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969)). 1993Nat’l Pension Fund Benefit Plan C v. Stockton TRI Indus., 727 F.2d 1204, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1984) (citing McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969)). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.