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.
34 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1927–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
in Re: Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc.green2 sentences2020Grocery Co., 492 In re Estabrook Page 4 S.W.3d at 304-05; see In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc., 435 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2014, orig. proceeding). 2019Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 304–05; see In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc., 435 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, orig. proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
Gobert v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The Court of Appeals did not fully analyze whether the error amounted to a structural defect affecting the framework in which trial proceeded, and cut short the examination of the error to which Appellant is entitled Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) p. 310, citing Gorbert v. State, 717 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex. Crim. 2015The Court of Appeals did not fully analyze whether the error amounted to a structural defect affecting the framework in which trial proceeded, and cut short the examination of the error to which Appellant is entitled Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) p. 310, citing Gorbert v. State, 717 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Crider v. Coxgreen2 sentences2008Smith v. Flack , 728 S.W.2d 784 , 790 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) ("[T]he Legislature has not provided a county auditor with any authority to delegate [the] duty [to make an independent examination of a claim and approve it] to another legal entity or office."); Crider , 960 S.W.2d 703 at 706-07 (holding that the county auditor had to examine the lawfulness of a claim independent of the commissioners court); Comm'rs Court v. Fullerton , 596 S.W.2d 572 , 578 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("The county auditor . . . cannot delegate his official duties to another, other than h 2008App. 1987) ("[T]he Legislature has not provided a county auditor with any authority to delegate [the] duty [to make an independent examination of a claim and approve it] to another legal entity or office."); Crider, 960 S.W.2d 703 at 706-07 (hold"ing that the county auditor had to examine the lawfulness of a claim independent of the commissioners court); Comm'rs Court v. Fullerton, 596 S.W.2d 572,578 (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 2 |
Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.green2 sentences2002See Stobaugh, 5 S.W.3d at 235 . 2002See Stobaugh , 5 S.W.3d at 235 . | 2 | 2 |
Commissioners Court of Harris County v. Fullertongreen2 sentences2008Smith v. Flack , 728 S.W.2d 784 , 790 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) ("[T]he Legislature has not provided a county auditor with any authority to delegate [the] duty [to make an independent examination of a claim and approve it] to another legal entity or office."); Crider , 960 S.W.2d 703 at 706-07 (holding that the county auditor had to examine the lawfulness of a claim independent of the commissioners court); Comm'rs Court v. Fullerton , 596 S.W.2d 572 , 578 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("The county auditor . . . cannot delegate his official duties to another, other than h 2008App. 1987) ("[T]he Legislature has not provided a county auditor with any authority to delegate [the] duty [to make an independent examination of a claim and approve it] to another legal entity or office."); Crider, 960 S.W.2d 703 at 706-07 (hold"ing that the county auditor had to examine the lawfulness of a claim independent of the commissioners court); Comm'rs Court v. Fullerton, 596 S.W.2d 572,578 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2 |
Sherwood Lane Associates v. O'NEILLgreen2 sentences2002See Laub v. Millard, 925 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding) (“Because Mary intends to use expert medical testimony from Dr. Pesikoff and Justice to prove her alleged incompetence, she has placed her mental condition in controversy and given Levi good cause for an examination under rule 167a.”); Exxon Corp. v. Starr, 790 S.W.2d 883, 887-88 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1990, orig. proceeding) (holding where real party in interest’s expert alleged that continuing psychiatric, psychological, and neuropsychological treatment would be necessary and real party in interest had des 1996Coates, 758 S.W.2d at 753 ; Sherwood Lane, 782 S.W.2d at 945 . | 1 | 2 |
Ex parte Dupuygreen1 sentence2024See Ex parte Dupuy, 498 S.W.3d 220, 233 (Tex. App.—Houston –9– [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (holding that review of bail set in other cases may be instructive). | 1 | 1 |
Sandy R. Duncan v. Woodlawn Manufacturing, LTDgreen1 sentence2020See Thel Chok Ngung v. State, No. 07-13-00315-CR, 2014 WL 2191999 , at *4 (Tex. App. – Amarillo May 23, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“We first observe that it has become a well-established principle that a reasonably competent counsel need not perform a useless or futile act.”); Duncan v. Woodlawn Mfg., Ltd., 479 S.W.3d 886, 895-98 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2015, no pet.) (where this Court observed, in the context of an argument as to whether a party was required to follow a notice-and-cure provision of a contract, that “Texas law does not require the performance of | 1 | 1 |
State v. Delvin Donehuegreen1 sentence2016“However, requiring a probationer to submit to a polygraph examination does not subject the person to custodial interrogation.” A.M., 333 S.W.3d at 417 ; Marcum, 963 S.W.2d at 766 (“Although the examination was a requirement of his probation, appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Camacho v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 533 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Garland Community Hospital v. Rosegreen2 sentences2010Garland Cmty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541, 543 (Tex.2004). 2010Garland Cmty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541, 543 (Tex.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Flackgreen1 sentence2008Smith v. Flack , 728 S.W.2d 784 , 790 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) ("[T]he Legislature has not provided a county auditor with any authority to delegate [the] duty [to make an independent examination of a claim and approve it] to another legal entity or office."); Crider , 960 S.W.2d 703 at 706-07 (holding that the county auditor had to examine the lawfulness of a claim independent of the commissioners court); Comm'rs Court v. Fullerton , 596 S.W.2d 572 , 578 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("The county auditor . . . cannot delegate his official duties to another, other than h | 1 | 1 |
Motilla v. Stategreen1 sentence2005This model does not entail an examination of the factors enumerated in Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), because we are not dealing with the erroneous admission of evidence. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Doegreen1 sentence2002See Laub v. Millard, 925 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding) (“Because Mary intends to use expert medical testimony from Dr. Pesikoff and Justice to prove her alleged incompetence, she has placed her mental condition in controversy and given Levi good cause for an examination under rule 167a.”); Exxon Corp. v. Starr, 790 S.W.2d 883, 887-88 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1990, orig. proceeding) (holding where real party in interest’s expert alleged that continuing psychiatric, psychological, and neuropsychological treatment would be necessary and real party in interest had des | 1 | 1 |
Exxon Corp. v. Starrgreen1 sentence2002See Laub v. Millard, 925 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding) (“Because Mary intends to use expert medical testimony from Dr. Pesikoff and Justice to prove her alleged incompetence, she has placed her mental condition in controversy and given Levi good cause for an examination under rule 167a.”); Exxon Corp. v. Starr, 790 S.W.2d 883, 887-88 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1990, orig. proceeding) (holding where real party in interest’s expert alleged that continuing psychiatric, psychological, and neuropsychological treatment would be necessary and real party in interest had des | 1 | 1 |
Laub v. Millardgreen1 sentence2002See Laub v. Millard, 925 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding) (“Because Mary intends to use expert medical testimony from Dr. Pesikoff and Justice to prove her alleged incompetence, she has placed her mental condition in controversy and given Levi good cause for an examination under rule 167a.”); Exxon Corp. v. Starr, 790 S.W.2d 883, 887-88 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1990, orig. proceeding) (holding where real party in interest’s expert alleged that continuing psychiatric, psychological, and neuropsychological treatment would be necessary and real party in interest had des | 1 | 1 |
Beamon v. O'NEILLgreen1 sentence2002See Laub v. Millard, 925 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding) (“Because Mary intends to use expert medical testimony from Dr. Pesikoff and Justice to prove her alleged incompetence, she has placed her mental condition in controversy and given Levi good cause for an examination under rule 167a.”); Exxon Corp. v. Starr, 790 S.W.2d 883, 887-88 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1990, orig. proceeding) (holding where real party in interest’s expert alleged that continuing psychiatric, psychological, and neuropsychological treatment would be necessary and real party in interest had des | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Third, by ignoring these latter arguments and taking a myopic view of the complained of arguments, the majority fails to properly apply Rule 44.2(b) which requires an examination of the error(s) in relation to the entire proceeding to determine whether the error(s) had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” See King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Ortiz, 999 S.W.2d at 606 . 2001Third, by ignoring these latter arguments and taking a myopic view of the complained of arguments, the majority fails to properly apply Rule 44.2(b) which requires an examination of the error(s) in relation to the entire proceeding to determine whether the error(s) had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." See King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 (Tex. Crim.App.1997); Ortiz, 999 S.W.2d at 606 . | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Payne, 579 S.W.2d at 932-33 . | 1 | 1 |
| Oregon v. Elstadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of Texas v. Central Power Light Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| White v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hovila v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2015The Court of Appeals did not fully analyze whether the error amounted to a structural defect affecting the framework in which trial proceeded, and cut short the examination of the error to which Appellant is entitled Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) p. 310, citing Gorbert v. State, 717 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex. Crim. 2015The Court of Appeals did not fully analyze whether the error amounted to a structural defect affecting the framework in which trial proceeded, and cut short the examination of the error to which Appellant is entitled Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) p. 310, citing Gorbert v. State, 717 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.
green
1 sentence2019Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 304–05; see In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc., 435 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, orig. proceeding). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rhomer v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. art. 38.35(e). 2019Id. art. 38.35(e). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re AM
green
1 sentence2016“However, requiring a probationer to submit to a polygraph examination does not subject the person to custodial interrogation.” A.M., 333 S.W.3d at 417 ; Marcum, 963 S.W.2d at 766 (“Although the examination was a requirement of his probation, appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation.”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re McCann
green
1 sentence2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (2013) have an obligation to conduct a full and omissions will be attributed to the examination of the defense provided capital client and will follow the client to the client at all prior phases of throughout all remaining proceedings the case. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ford v. State
green
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ortiz v. State
green
2 sentences2001Third, by ignoring these latter arguments and taking a myopic view of the complained of arguments, the majority fails to properly apply Rule 44.2(b) which requires an examination of the error(s) in relation to the entire proceeding to determine whether the error(s) had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” See King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Ortiz, 999 S.W.2d at 606 . 2001Third, by ignoring these latter arguments and taking a myopic view of the complained of arguments, the majority fails to properly apply Rule 44.2(b) which requires an examination of the error(s) in relation to the entire proceeding to determine whether the error(s) had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." See King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 (Tex. Crim.App.1997); Ortiz, 999 S.W.2d at 606 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Coates v. Whittington
green
1 sentence1996Coates, 758 S.W.2d at 753 ; Sherwood Lane, 782 S.W.2d at 945 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Dorado v. State
green
1 sentence1993Dorado v. State, 843 S.W.2d 37 (Tex.Cr.App., 1992); Lankston v. State, 841 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1993Having found that the trial court erred in failing to sustain Appellant’s objection under art. 38.072, an examination of such error under the standards prescribed by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568 , 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) and Higginbotham v. State, 807 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) is necessary. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Lankston v. State
green
1 sentence1993Dorado v. State, 843 S.W.2d 37 (Tex.Cr.App., 1992); Lankston v. State, 841 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Higginbotham v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Griffin v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Ballard v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Shiflet v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Railroad Commission v. United Parcel Service, Inc. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Turner v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Caballero v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| City of Dallas v. Gates neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Palacio v. State neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Jackson v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Jackson v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Furman v. Georgia green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Wallace v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Eubanks v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n neutral | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Associated Employers Lloyds v. Tullos green | 1 | 1952–1952 |
| Baker ex rel. Baker v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad neutral | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Engel v. Smith green | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Kimball green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Wandry v. Williams green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.