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 1 courts 2010–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodriguez v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Rodriguez , 903 S.W.2d at 412 ("Until such time as the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Texas Legislature changes the [sworn and in-writing] requirement, this procedure must be met."). 9 Robinson has not cited any authority holding that he was entitled to rely on Angela's presence at the punishment hearing — even though she did not receive a subpoena for that hearing — merely because she testified at the adjudication hearing. 2010Rodriguez , 903 S.W.2d at 412 (“Until such time as the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Texas Legislature changes the [sworn and in-writing] requirement, this procedure must be met.”). 9: Robinson has not cited any authority holding that he was entitled to rely on Angela’s presence at the punishment hearing—even though she did not receive a subpoena for that hearing—merely because she testified at the adjudication hearing. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Latham v. Thornton
green
2 sentences2025In its attack on Latham, the State falsely asserts that Relators have offered a “single case” to support courts’ routine distinction between a main suit and a subpoena challenge, conveniently ignoring the multiple other examples cited in 11 Relators’ Petition. 1 See Latham v. Thornton, 806 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ). 2025In its attack on Latham, the State falsely asserts that Relators have offered a “single case” to support courts’ routine distinction between a main suit and a subpoena challenge, conveniently ignoring the multiple other examples cited in 11 Relators’ Petition. 1 See Latham v. Thornton, 806 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
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.