evidence introduced hearing in Texas

33 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1919–2023 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.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smithgreen tex · 1945 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Id.; see also Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612 , 187 S.W.2d 363, 366 (1945) (discussing statement of evidence which recited proof had been introduced establishing all allegations in plaintiff's original petition); Blackman v. Blackman, 128 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1939, writ dism'd judgm't cor.) (providing brief summary of statement of the evidence adduced at trial, a summary which included description of documentary and testimonial evidence and statement as to relevance of some items of evidence). 2004Id.; see also Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612 , 187 S.W.2d 363, 366 (1945) (discussing statement of evidence which recited proof had been introduced establishing all allegations in plaintiff's original petition); Blackman v. Blackman, 128 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1939, writ dism'd judgm't cor.) (providing brief summary of statement of the evidence adduced at trial, a summary which included description of documentary and testimonial evidence and statement as to relevance of some items of evidence).	2	2
Blackman v. Blackmangreen texapp · 1939 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Id.; see also Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612 , 187 S.W.2d 368, 366 (1945) (discussing statement of evidence which recited proof had been introduced establishing all allegations in plaintiffs original petition); Blackman v. Blackman, 128 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1939, writ dism’d judgm’t cor.) (providing brief summary of statement of the evidence adduced at trial, a summary which included description of documentary and testimonial evidence and statement as to relevance of some items of evidence). 2004Id.; see also Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612 , 187 S.W.2d 363, 366 (1945) (discussing statement of evidence which recited proof had been introduced establishing all allegations in plaintiff's original petition); Blackman v. Blackman, 128 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1939, writ dism'd judgm't cor.) (providing brief summary of statement of the evidence adduced at trial, a summary which included description of documentary and testimonial evidence and statement as to relevance of some items of evidence).	2	2
Banda v. Garcia Ex Rel. Garciagreen tex · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex. 1997) (holding unsworn factual statements made by attorney constitute evidence where opponent of testimony fails to object to attorney not being under oath).	1	1
Wise v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See, cf., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979) (discussing standard for determining whether sufficient evidence supports conviction); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim.	1	1
Jackson v. Virginiared scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, cf., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979) (discussing standard for determining whether sufficient evidence supports conviction); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. 2013See, cf., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979) (discussing standard for determining whether sufficient evidence supports conviction); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim.	1	1
Kokernot v. Gilstrapgreen tex · 1945 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Id.; see also Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612 , 187 S.W.2d 368, 366 (1945) (discussing statement of evidence which recited proof had been introduced establishing all allegations in plaintiffs original petition); Blackman v. Blackman, 128 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1939, writ dism’d judgm’t cor.) (providing brief summary of statement of the evidence adduced at trial, a summary which included description of documentary and testimonial evidence and statement as to relevance of some items of evidence).	1	1
Hardesty v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001See Hardesty v. State , 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n.6 (Tex. Crim.	1	1
House v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See House, 947 S.W.2d at 253 ; Schwartz, 930 S.W.2d at 960 ; see also Rule 3.08, comments 2, 3, 9, 10. 2001See House, 947 S.W.2d at 253 ; Schwartz, 930 S.W.2d at 960 ; see also Rule 3.08, comments 2, 3, 9, 10.	1	1
Gotcher v. Barnettgreen texapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996Strackbein, 671 S.W.2d at 38-39 ; Litchfield v. Litchfield, 794 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); Gotcher v. Barnett, 757 S.W.2d 398, 401 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no writ). *299 In determining if the factual allegations are controverted, the court looks to all evidence in the record including the non-movant’s affidavits and the evidence introduced at the hearing.	1	1
Litchfield v. Litchfieldgreen texapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996Strackbein, 671 S.W.2d at 38-39 ; Litchfield v. Litchfield, 794 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); Gotcher v. Barnett, 757 S.W.2d 398, 401 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no writ). *299 In determining if the factual allegations are controverted, the court looks to all evidence in the record including the non-movant’s affidavits and the evidence introduced at the hearing.	1	1
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Williamsgreen texapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Williams, 642 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1982, no writ) (motion for new trial hearing on jury misconduct); Wilburn v. K.W.	1	1
Faulder v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 1 sentence 1989Faulder , at 338.	1	1
D-----F v. Stategreen texapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 1 sentence 1979F. v. State, 525 S.W.2d 933, 940 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, no writ).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (36)

Case	Cited	Years
State Bar of Texas v. Evans green tex · 1989 2 sentences 2019State Bar of Tex. v. Evans, 774 S.W.2d 656 , 658 n.6 (Tex. 1989); Weidner, 14 S.W.3d at 363 . 2018State Bar of Tex. v. Evans, 774 S.W.2d 656 , 658 n.6 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); Weidner, 14 S.W.3d at 363 .	3	2017–2019
Weidner v. Sanchez green texapp · 2000 2 sentences 2019State Bar of Tex. v. Evans, 774 S.W.2d 656 , 658 n.6 (Tex. 1989); Weidner, 14 S.W.3d at 363 . 2018State Bar of Tex. v. Evans, 774 S.W.2d 656 , 658 n.6 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); Weidner, 14 S.W.3d at 363 .	3	2017–2019
Petroleum Producers Co. v. Reed neutral texapp · 1938 2 sentences 1940The plaintiffs appealed from this judgment and same was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 122 S.W.2d 1116 . 1940The plaintiffs appealed from this judgment and same was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 122 S. W. (2d) 1116 .	2	1940–1940
Huddleston v. United States green scotus · 1988 2 sentences 2023App. 1990) (citing Huddleston v. U. S., 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 39 whether the State has introduced sufficient evidence to meet a preliminary condition under Rule 104(b)—which in Guevara’s case was does the evidence in the Article 38.37 hearing show the evidence likely to be admitted at trial would be adequate to support the jury’s finding that the defendant committed the separate offense beyond reasonable doubt— “the trial court neither weighs credibility nor makes a finding that the [State] has proved the conditional fact[.]” 49 Instead, the court acts as a gatekeeper, examines the evidence intr 2023Evid. 404(b).”). 49See Huddleston, 485 U.S. at 690 ; Tex. Code Crim.	1	2023–2023
Kniatt v. State green texcrimapp · 2006 2 sentences 2013Id. 2013Id.	1	2013–2013
Cummins v. Paisan Construction Co. green tex · 1984 1 sentence 2009Id.	1	2009–2009
Graves v. Graves green texapp · 1996 1 sentence 2004Id. ; see also Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith , 143 Tex. 612 , 187 S.W.2d 363, 366 (1945) (discussing statement of evidence which recited proof had been introduced establishing all allegations in plaintiff's original petition); Blackman v. Blackman , 128 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex. Civ.	1	2004–2004
Schwartz v. Jefferson green texapp · 1996 2 sentences 2001See House, 947 S.W.2d at 253 ; Schwartz, 930 S.W.2d at 960 ; see also Rule 3.08, comments 2, 3, 9, 10. 2001See House, 947 S.W.2d at 253 ; Schwartz, 930 S.W.2d at 960 ; see also Rule 3.08, comments 2, 3, 9, 10.	1	2001–2001
Strackbein v. Prewitt green tex · 1984 1 sentence 1996Strackbein, 671 S.W.2d at 38-39 ; Litchfield v. Litchfield, 794 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); Gotcher v. Barnett, 757 S.W.2d 398, 401 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no writ). *299 In determining if the factual allegations are controverted, the court looks to all evidence in the record including the non-movant’s affidavits and the evidence introduced at the hearing.	1	1996–1996
State Board of Insurance v. Deffebach green texapp · 1982 2 sentences 1992Although the Commission is not required in every instance to utilize rule-making over a contested case proceeding, it may exercise “informed discretion.” However, when “an agency faces the alternative of proceeding by rulemaking or by adjudication, the process of rulemaking should be utilized except in those cases ... [when] there is a danger that its use would frustrate the effective accomplishment of the agency’s functions.” State Board of Insurance v. Deffebach, 631 S.W.2d at 799 (citing 1 F. Cooper, State Administrative Law 181 (1965)). 1992Although the Commission is not required in every instance to utilize rulemaking over a contested case proceeding, it may exercise "informed discretion." However, when "an agency faces the alternative of proceeding by rulemaking or by adjudication, the process of rulemaking should be utilized except in those cases ... [when] there is a danger that its use would frustrate the effective accomplishment of the agency's functions." State Board of Insurance v. Deffebach, 631 S.W.2d at 799 (citing 1 F. Cooper, State Administrative Law 181 (1965)).	1	1992–1992
Stedman v. GEORGETOWN S. & L. ASS'N green tex · 1979 1 sentence 1989Stedman v. Georgetown Savings & Loan Assoc., 595 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.1979).	1	1989–1989
Henry Willis, III v. Walter B. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center green ca11 · 1983 2 sentences 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff’d sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dalléis County district attorney’s office has systematically excluded blacks from juries. 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dallas County district attorney's office has systematically excluded blacks from juries.	1	1988–1988
Henry Willis, III v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent green ca11 · 1988 2 sentences 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff’d sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dalléis County district attorney’s office has systematically excluded blacks from juries. 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dallas County district attorney's office has systematically excluded blacks from juries.	1	1988–1988
In re Dohm green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff’d sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dalléis County district attorney’s office has systematically excluded blacks from juries. 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dallas County district attorney's office has systematically excluded blacks from juries.	1	1988–1988
Hydrokinetics, Inc. v. Alaska Mechanical, Inc. green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff’d sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dalléis County district attorney’s office has systematically excluded blacks from juries. 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dallas County district attorney's office has systematically excluded blacks from juries.	1	1988–1988
Hoopa Valley Tribe of Indians v. Short green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff’d sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dalléis County district attorney’s office has systematically excluded blacks from juries. 1988Applicant attempted to show a history of systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in Dallas County, the second requirement discussed in Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 , 104 S.Ct. 3548 , 82 L.Ed.2d 851 (1984), aff'd sub nom., Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1988), by presenting testimony from several criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who practice law in Dallas County to support his claim that the Dallas County district attorney's office has systematically excluded blacks from juries.	1	1988–1988
Sims v. State green texcrimapp · 1977	1	1977–1977
Boykin v. State green texcrimapp · 1974 1 sentence 1977Boykin v. State, 516 S.W.2d 946 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Roberts v. State, supra. In our recent decision in Sims v. State, 546 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), we held that the evidence presented at the hearing on an untimely motion for new trial would be treated as an informal bill of exception.	1	1977–1977
TEXAS EMP. INS. ASS'N v. Yother green texapp · 1957	1	1975–1975
Gelfond v. Levit neutral texapp · 1966	1	1966–1966
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. green tex · 1939	1	1966–1966
Erwin v. State neutral texcrimapp · 1962	1	1963–1963
Soliz v. State green texcrimapp · 1961	1	1963–1963
Texas Industrial Traffic League v. Railroad Commission of Texas neutral texapp · 1953	1	1959–1959
Jones v. Pacific Indemnity Co. neutral texapp · 1959	1	1959–1959
Railroad Commission v. McDonald green texapp · 1936	1	1959–1959
Gossett v. State green texcrimapp · 1955	1	1958–1958
Fletcher v. King green texapp · 1934	1	1941–1941
Turner v. Parker neutral texapp · 1929	1	1941–1941
Sneed v. Ellison green texapp · 1938	1	1941–1941
Curlee Clothing Co. v. Wickliffe neutral tex · 1936	1	1941–1941
Sanitary Appliance Co. v. French neutral texapp · 1931	1	1941–1941
Southwestern Sewer Co. v. Morris neutral texapp · 1930	1	1941–1941
Minton v. Leavell green texapp · 1927	1	1941–1941
Parrott v. Peacock Military College neutral texapp · 1915	1	1920–1920
Ex Parte Howard neutral tex · 1908	1	1919–1919

Where else courts name it

GA 34 (1893–2012) TX 33 (1919–2023) CA 23 (1911–2023) IL 19 (1929–2023) OH 15 (1984–2026) NY 12 (1979–2023) LA 10 (1981–2014) WA 8 (1906–2018) FL 8 (1955–2023) NC 8 (1963–2012) PA 8 (1958–2023) TN 7 (1969–2016) NE 6 (1895–2020) AL 5 (1867–2003) OK 5 (1927–1992) IA 4 (1951–2021) NM 4 (1999–2013) MI 4 (2016–2024) CO 4 (1933–2018) MA 4 (1917–2018) MO 3 (1907–1984) IN 3 (1921–1993) VI 3 (2014–2016) DE 2 (2023–2025) SD 2 (1980–1980) NJ 2 (1988–1991) AZ 2 (1973–2015) VT 2 (1976–2025) KS 2 (1904–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check