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 4 courts 2003–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rickels v. Stategreen2 sentences2019App. 2013) (“An appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object when he had the –9– opportunity.”) (quoting Rickels v. State, 108 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. 2018App. 2013) (“An appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object when he had the opportunity[.]” (quoting Rickels v. State, 108 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. | 11 | 11 |
Burt, Lemuel Carlgreen2 sentences2026“An appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object when he had the opportunity.” Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574, 577-78 (Tex. Crim. 2026“An appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object when he had the opportunity.” Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574, 577-78 (Tex. Crim. | 9 | 10 |
Cobb v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Rickels v. State, 108 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (appellant did not forfeit his objection since “the [trial] court modified the terms of Rick-els’s probation without a hearing, and Rickels had no opportunity to object.”); Cobb v. State, 95 S.W.3d 664, 666 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (appellant did not forfeit challenge to language in written judgment “because the judgment was not prepared until after the end of the hearing, [therefore] appellant could not have complained at the hearing about any alleged defect in the judgment.”). 6 In this case, the Court of Appea 2013See Rickels v. State, 108 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (appellant did not forfeit his objection since “the [trial] court modified the terms of Rickels’s probation without a hearing, and Rickels had no opportunity to object.”); Cobb v. State, 95 S.W.3d 664, 666 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (appellant did not forfeit challenge to language in written judgment “because the judgment was not prepared until after the end of the hearing, [therefore) appellant could not have complained at the hearing about any alleged defect in the judgment.”). | 3 | 3 |
Almanza v. Statered2 sentences2026When, as here, an appellant fails to preserve error, we review the charge error under the “egregious harm” standard articulated in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 2026When, as here, an appellant fails to preserve error, we review the charge error under the “egregious harm” standard articulated in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). | 2 | 5 |
Swain v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 2011See Swain v. State , 181 S.W.3d 359, 367 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Wilson v. State , 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). 2005Wilson v. State , 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Landers v. Stategreen2 sentences2024However, the general rule still applies: “An appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object when he had the opportunity; conversely, if an appellant never had the opportunity to object, then he has not forfeited error.” Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 252, 254 (Tex. Crim. 2014Id. (quoting Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574, 577-78 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)). | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2024App. 2013); see Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 710–11 (citing Rickels v. State, 108 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Coffey v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Coffey v. State , 744 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), aff’d , 796 S.W.2d 175, 180 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Coffey v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Coffey v. State , 744 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), aff’d , 796 S.W.2d 175, 180 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner Ex Rel. Pitznergreen1 sentence2003In Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner , 55 S.W.3d 114, 125 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001), rev'd on other grounds, No. 01-0870, __ Tex. Sup. Ct. J. __, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 65, at *1 (May 22, 2003), this Court held that an appellant fails to preserve error on issues that must be preserved for appellate review by a point raised in a motion for new trial where the appellant fails to pay the filing fee for its motion for new trial until long after the motion was overruled by operation of law and the trial court lost plenary jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Marathon Corp. v. Pitznergreen2 sentences2003See id. 2003In Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner , 55 S.W.3d 114, 125 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001), rev'd on other grounds, No. 01-0870, __ Tex. Sup. Ct. J. __, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 65, at *1 (May 22, 2003), this Court held that an appellant fails to preserve error on issues that must be preserved for appellate review by a point raised in a motion for new trial where the appellant fails to pay the filing fee for its motion for new trial until long after the motion was overruled by operation of law and the trial court lost plenary jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. State
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 282-83 . 2004Id. at 282-83 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
House v. State
green
1 sentence2025“Furthermore, an objection is required every time inadmissible evidence is presented.” House, 909 S.W.2d at 216 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2023Jones v. State, No. 05-21-00019-CR, 2022 WL 854915 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Davis, 313 S.W.3d at 347 ); Broussard v. State, No. 09-20-00259-CR, 2022 WL 2056388 , at *7 12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 8, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Oliver v. State, No. 03-19-00725-CR, 2020 WL 5105209 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 27, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.