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.
36 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1928–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Rodriguez v. State, No. 04-04-00230-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2959 at *2 (Tex. App. – San Antonio Apr. 20, 2005, pet. ref’d)(mem. op., not designated for publication). 34 (1) if the rule was violated and the witness disqualified, were there particular circumstances, other than the mere fact of the violation, which would tend to show the defendant or his counsel consented, procured or otherwise had knowledge of the witness’s presence in the courtroom, together with knowledge of the content of that witness’s testimony; and (2) if no particular circumstances existed to justify disqualification 2014First, if the Rule was violated and the witness was disqualified, we must determine whether there were ―particular circumstances, other than the mere fact of the violation, [that] would tend to show the defendant or [her] counsel consented, procured or otherwise had knowledge of the witness‘s presence in the courtroom, together with knowledge of the content of that witness‘s testimony[.]‖ Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 590 (citing Webb v. State, 766 S.W.2d 236, 244 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 26 |
Acord v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2010See Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 (in closely contested case, instruction that singled out for the jury that General Motors was neither an insurer nor a guarantor of an accident-proof product was an impermissible comment on the case as a whole); Maddox, 930 S.W.2d at 671 (noting every correct statement of the law does not belong in the jury charge, and holding surplus instruction on duty tended to lead the jury to a particular answer and suggested judge’s opinion on the issue). 2010See Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 (in closely contested case, instruction that singled out for the jury that General Motors was neither an insurer nor a guarantor of an accident-proof product was an impermissible comment on the case as a whole); Maddox, 930 S.W.2d at 671 (noting every correct statement of the law does not belong in the jury charge, and holding surplus instruction on duty tended to lead the jury to a particular answer and suggested judge’s opinion on the issue). | 2 | 2 |
Maddox v. Denka Chemical Corp.green2 sentences2010See Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 (in closely contested case, instruction that singled out for the jury that General Motors was neither an insurer nor a guarantor of an accident-proof product was an impermissible comment on the case as a whole); Maddox, 930 S.W.2d at 671 (noting every correct statement of the law does not belong in the jury charge, and holding surplus instruction on duty tended to lead the jury to a particular answer and suggested judge’s opinion on the issue). 2010See Acord, 669 S.W.2d at 116 (in closely contested case, instruction that singled out for the jury that General Motors was neither an insurer nor a guarantor of an accident-proof product was an impermissible comment on the case as a whole); Maddox, 930 S.W.2d at 671 (noting every correct statement of the law does not belong in the jury charge, and holding surplus instruction on duty tended to lead the jury to a particular answer and suggested judge’s opinion on the issue). | 2 | 2 |
Routier v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Webb, 766 S.W.2d at 244 ; see also Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 590 . 2014First, if the Rule was violated and the witness was disqualified, we must determine whether there were ―particular circumstances, other than the mere fact of the violation, [that] would tend to show the defendant or [her] counsel consented, procured or otherwise had knowledge of the witness‘s presence in the courtroom, together with knowledge of the content of that witness‘s testimony[.]‖ Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 590 (citing Webb v. State, 766 S.W.2d 236, 244 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 6 |
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen1 sentence2019When the mandamus record establishes that an error occurred in a case involving a 18 See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136 (holding that relief is available only when no adequate remedy exists through an appeal). 19 In re Team Rocket, 256 S.W.3d at 262 . 20 See In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d at 528 . 21 In re Spiller, 303 S.W.3d 426, 431 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, orig. proceeding). 14 final judgment overturned in a bill of review, “[t]he act of proceeding to trial based on an improperly granted bill of review defeats the fundamental public policy favoring the finality of judgments.”22 Were we to r | 1 | 1 |
In Re Spillergreen1 sentence2019When the mandamus record establishes that an error occurred in a case involving a 18 See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136 (holding that relief is available only when no adequate remedy exists through an appeal). 19 In re Team Rocket, 256 S.W.3d at 262 . 20 See In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d at 528 . 21 In re Spiller, 303 S.W.3d 426, 431 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, orig. proceeding). 14 final judgment overturned in a bill of review, “[t]he act of proceeding to trial based on an improperly granted bill of review defeats the fundamental public policy favoring the finality of judgments.”22 Were we to r | 1 | 1 |
Hitchcock Properties, Inc. v. Leveringgreen1 sentence2013Webb v. State, 776 S.W.2d 236, 245 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Sanus/New York Life Health Plan, Inc. v. Dube-Seybold-Sutherland Management, Inc.green2 sentences1995Sanus/New York Life Ins. v. Dube-Seybold-Sutherland Management, Inc., 837 S.W.2d 191, 197 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). 1995Sanus/New York Life Ins. v. Dube-Seybol-Sutherland Management, Inc., 837 S.W.2d 191, 197 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence1994Ibid, at 245; Elisha Genaro Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) p. 3. | 1 | 1 |
Chavez v. Stategreen1 sentence1991Webb, 766 S.W.2d at 245 ; Chavez v. State, 794 S.W.2d 910, 915 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carmona v. State
green
2 sentences1997Carmona, 941 S.W.2d at 954 . 1997Carmona , 941 S.W.2d at 954 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Jefferson County v. Akins
green
1 sentence2026Morgan relies on Akins to contend that “a warning sign placed approximately twenty feet away, with scant evidence of visibility may be found inadequate by a jury, underscoring that proximity and context govern.” While we agree to the extent that a warning sign’s visibility, its proximity to the dangerous condition, and the context in which it is placed and displayed are important factors to consider in determining its adequacy, the mere fact that the warning sign in this case could have been placed closer to the wet spot where Morgan slipped and fell does not preclude a finding that In Akins, | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Team Rocket, L.P.
green
1 sentence2019When the mandamus record establishes that an error occurred in a case involving a 18 See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136 (holding that relief is available only when no adequate remedy exists through an appeal). 19 In re Team Rocket, 256 S.W.3d at 262 . 20 See In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d at 528 . 21 In re Spiller, 303 S.W.3d 426, 431 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, orig. proceeding). 14 final judgment overturned in a bill of review, “[t]he act of proceeding to trial based on an improperly granted bill of review defeats the fundamental public policy favoring the finality of judgments.”22 Were we to r | 1 | 2019–2019 |
in Re Essex Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2019When the mandamus record establishes that an error occurred in a case involving a 18 See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136 (holding that relief is available only when no adequate remedy exists through an appeal). 19 In re Team Rocket, 256 S.W.3d at 262 . 20 See In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d at 528 . 21 In re Spiller, 303 S.W.3d 426, 431 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, orig. proceeding). 14 final judgment overturned in a bill of review, “[t]he act of proceeding to trial based on an improperly granted bill of review defeats the fundamental public policy favoring the finality of judgments.”22 Were we to r | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Longoria v. State
green
1 sentence2010Longoria , 148 S.W.3d at 660 (citing Webb , 766 S.W.2d at 244–45). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wiess v. Hall
neutral
1 sentence1928In Wiess v. Hall (Tex.Civ.App.) 135 S.W. 384 , 390, the court used this language: "The record is not without errors; but none of them, we think, presents sufficient grounds for reversal. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.