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.
33 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dinkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also Dinkins, 894 S.W.2d at 339 (“When we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.”) (citations omitted). 2. 2021But, “[w]hen we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole . . . .” Dinkins v. 8 State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex. Crim. | 13 | 13 |
Caldwell v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“When we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole, considering the workable relationship between the abstract parts of the charge and those parts that apply the abstract law to the facts of the case.” Caldwell, 971 S.W.2d at 666 . 2015“When we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole, considering the workable relationship between the abstract parts of the charge and those parts that apply the abstract law to the facts of the case.” Caldwell, 971 S.W.2d at 666 . | 5 | 8 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2011King v. State, 189 S.W.3d 347, 364 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). 2011King v. State, 189 S.W.3d 347, 364 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). | 4 | 4 |
Plata v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex. Crim. 2000Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), overruled on other grounds by Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d at 234; Caldwell, 971 S.W.2d at 666 . | 4 | 4 |
Castaneda v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Castaneda v. State, 28 S.W.3d 685, 694 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.). 1. 2008Castaneda v. State, 28 S.W.3d 685, 694 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.). 1. | 3 | 3 |
Malik v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), overruled on other grounds by Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d at 234; Caldwell, 971 S.W.2d at 666 . 1998See Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (discussing connection between definitional instructions and application instructions in the context of vicarious criminal responsibility), overruled on other grounds by Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (holding sufficiency of the evidence is now measured by the elements of the charge as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge). | 2 | 2 |
Kennedy Dewayne Riley v. Stategreen1 sentence2025When we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole, and while the application paragraph specifies the factual circumstances under which the jury should convict or acquit, “it need not set forth specifically all of the elements necessary to convict a defendant if those elements have been accurately set forth in another section of the charge.” Id. (quoting Riley v. State, 447 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d)). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2005“When we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); accord Taylor v. State, 148 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd); Hanks v. State, 104 S.W.3d 695, 700 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003), aff'd, 137 S.W.3d 668 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Hanks v. Stategreen1 sentence2005“When we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); accord Taylor v. State, 148 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd); Hanks v. State, 104 S.W.3d 695, 700 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003), aff'd, 137 S.W.3d 668 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Holley v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Holley v. State, 766 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); and, Inman v. State, 650 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). 1995Holley v. State, 766 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); and, Inman v. State, 650 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1 |
Inman v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Holley v. State, 766 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); and, Inman v. State, 650 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). 1995Holley v. State, 766 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); and, Inman v. State, 650 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hanks v. State
green
1 sentence2005“When we review a charge for alleged error, we must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); accord Taylor v. State, 148 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd); Hanks v. State, 104 S.W.3d 695, 700 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003), aff'd, 137 S.W.3d 668 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.