31 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1971–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jansson v. Stategreen2 sentences1974The exception germane to our discussion is the one which pointed out that the allegations in the State’s motion do not point out,, any “specific time or times he has failed to report.” In Kuenstler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 367 , the court said: “While the allegations in a motion to revoke do not require the same particularity of an indictment or an information, in all fairness the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion ... so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend.” See Jansson v. S 1973NOTES [1] On this point, appellant's cases of Harris v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 71 , 331 S.W.2d 941 (1960) and Jansson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) are distinguishable. [1] "The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, but in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the motion to revoke and copy timely served on the probationer so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend." Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. | 3 | 6 |
Garner v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The allegations in a motion to revoke community supervision do not require the same particularity as those in an indictment or information; however, "in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend." Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim. 1986As was stated in Garner, supra at 179: "While the allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend. [citations omitted.] When the allegations in the motion fail to fully inform the probationer, and the trial court refused to sustain an exception timely filed, the probationer is denied the rudiments of | 2 | 3 |
Campbell v. Stategreen2 sentences1973NOTES [1] On this point, appellant's cases of Harris v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 71 , 331 S.W.2d 941 (1960) and Jansson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) are distinguishable. [1] "The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, but in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the motion to revoke and copy timely served on the probationer so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend." Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1973“The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, but in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the motion to revoke and copy timely served on the probationer so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend.” Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). | 1 | 8 |
Kuenstler v. Stategreen2 sentences1986As was stated in Garner, supra at 179: "While the allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend. [citations omitted.] When the allegations in the motion fail to fully inform the probationer, and the trial court refused to sustain an exception timely filed, the probationer is denied the rudiments of 1986As was stated in Gamer, supra at 179: “While the allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend, [citations omitted.] When the allegations in the motion fail to fully inform the probationer, and the trial court refused to sustain an exception timely filed, the probationer is denied the rudiments of d | 1 | 6 |
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commissiongreen2 sentences1992Co., 615 S.W.2d at 955 . 1992This Court has also stated in a utility rate case that if a reviewing court sustains a utility's allegations of error, "the proper judgment will be one of remand to the agency with instructions to re-determine the utility's annual revenue increase in light of the final decisions made upon the utility's various contentions of error." Southwestern Bell, etc. v. Public Util., etc. , 615 S.W.2d 947, 955 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Williams v. State, 531 S.W.3d 902, 920 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.); see also Hudson, 2017 WL 5472626 , at *7–8. (finding that the State had a strong need for extraneous evidence where there was no direct evidence linking appellant to the allegations and defense counsel presented the jury with testimony regarding an alibi). | 1 | 1 |
Cobb v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
City of Lubbock v. Rulegreen1 sentence2006City of Lubbock v. Rule v. 68 S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2002, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
National Gypsum Co. v. Kirbyville Independent School Districtgreen2 sentences1996National Gypsum v. Kirbyville Independent School Dist., 770 S.W.2d 621 , *31 626 (Tex.App.Beaumont 1989, writ dism'd w.o.j.). 1996National Gypsum v. Kirbyville Independent School Dist., 770 S.W.2d 621, 626 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1989, writ dism’d w.o.j.). | 1 | 1 |
Wilcox v. Stategreen1 sentence1973See also Wilcox v. State, 477 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. Cr.App.1972). [2] Despite the condition of this record, the majority boldly states: "Subsequently, in June 1971, appellant was tried before a jury on a charge of murder and found guilty, receiving life imprisonment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burkett v. State
green
2 sentences1977Tamez v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 534 S.W.2d 686 ; Graham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 809 ; Kuenstler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 367 ; Burk-ett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 578 ; Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 918 . 1972The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or an information, but in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the motion to revoke and a copy timely served on the probationer so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend.” See also Jansson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Gamble v. State, 484 S.W.2d 713 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Burkett v. State, 485 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr. | 4 | 1972–1977 |
Gamble v. State
green
2 sentences1973Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Jansson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Gamble v. State, 484 S.W.2d 713 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Burkett v. State, 485 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Kuenstler v. State, 486 S.W.2d 367, 368 (Tex.Cr. 1972The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or an information, but in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the motion to revoke and a copy timely served on the probationer so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend.” See also Jansson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Gamble v. State, 484 S.W.2d 713 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Burkett v. State, 485 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr. | 3 | 1972–1973 |
Heyden Newport Chemical Corp. v. Southern General Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 26 . 2001Id. at 25 . | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Hacker, Anthony Wayne
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Canseco v. State
green
1 sentence2021Canseco, 199 S.W.3d at 438-39 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hillery v. Kyle
green
1 sentence2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Hillery v. Kyle, 371 S.W.3d 482 (2012) well established that administration of anticoagulant medications like Because Dr. Goldman's report and curriculum vitae Heparin can prevent clots from demonstrate his knowledge and experience treating patients forming thereby preventing the in circumstances similar to those that form the basis development of pulmonary emboli. of the allegations in this claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Goldman qualified. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2007Since the first two pieces of evidence (applicant's remark at the club and her attempt to sell a high-powered rifle) were only remotely connected in time to the murder, this third piece of evidence was the most critical that the State presented against her, and it is primarily in light of this evidence that we consider the following allegations of error to determine whether "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694 . 1. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jack v. State
green
1 sentence1996The State urges Moore has waived all the non-jurisdictional defects occurring prior to the plea under the Helms rule reiterated in Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Life Insurance Co. of Southwest v. Brister
green
1 sentence1996Brister, 722 S.W.2d at 773 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission
green
1 sentence1992App. 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e., 622 S.W.2d 82 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
West v. Solito
green
2 sentences1985Accordingly, Relator was entitled to assert the privilege...." Id. at 244-45 . 1985Accordingly, Relator was entitled to assert the privilege....” Id. at 244-45 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Dick v. Kazen
green
1 sentence1978Rogers v. Lynn, 121 Tex. 467 , 49 S.W.2d 709 (1932); Dick v. Kazen, 156 Tex. 122 , 292 S.W.2d 913 (1956); Stroud v. Beggerly, 542 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1976, no writ). 3 Based upon the facts and arguments presented to us, the Respondents’ allegations of a waiver of Relator’s attorney-client privilege cannot be supported at this time. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Stroud v. Beggerly
neutral
1 sentence1978Rogers v. Lynn, 121 Tex. 467 , 49 S.W.2d 709 (1932); Dick v. Kazen, 156 Tex. 122 , 292 S.W.2d 913 (1956); Stroud v. Beggerly, 542 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1976, no writ). 3 Based upon the facts and arguments presented to us, the Respondents’ allegations of a waiver of Relator’s attorney-client privilege cannot be supported at this time. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Rogers v. Lynn and Sheppard
green
2 sentences1978Rogers v. Lynn, 121 Tex. 467 , 49 S.W.2d 709 (1932); Dick v. Kazen, 156 Tex. 122 , 292 S.W.2d 913 (1956); Stroud v. Beggerly, 542 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1976, no writ). 3 Based upon the facts and arguments presented to us, the Respondents’ allegations of a waiver of Relator’s attorney-client privilege cannot be supported at this time. 1978Rogers v. Lynn, 121 Tex. 467 , 49 S.W.2d 709 (1932); Dick v. Kazen, 156 Tex. 122 , 292 S.W.2d 913 (1956); Stroud v. Beggerly, 542 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1976, no writ). 3 Based upon the facts and arguments presented to us, the Respondents’ allegations of a waiver of Relator’s attorney-client privilege cannot be supported at this time. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Dick v. Kazen
green
1 sentence1978Rogers v. Lynn, 121 Tex. 467 , 49 S.W.2d 709 (1932); Dick v. Kazen, 156 Tex. 122 , 292 S.W.2d 913 (1956); Stroud v. Beggerly, 542 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1976, no writ). 3 Based upon the facts and arguments presented to us, the Respondents’ allegations of a waiver of Relator’s attorney-client privilege cannot be supported at this time. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Tamez v. State
green
1 sentence1977Tamez v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 534 S.W.2d 686 ; Graham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 809 ; Kuenstler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 367 ; Burk-ett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 578 ; Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 918 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Graham v. State
green
1 sentence1977Tamez v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 534 S.W.2d 686 ; Graham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 809 ; Kuenstler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 367 ; Burk-ett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 578 ; Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 918 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Jedlicka v. Wilkins
green
1 sentence1975Consequently, we find that the allegations of error in appellants’ amended application for certiorari, which we have pre *159 viously summarized, are sufficient to comply with the requirement of Rule 344, supra. See Jedlicka v. Wilkins, 459 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1970, writ dism’d). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences1973NOTES [1] On this point, appellant's cases of Harris v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 71 , 331 S.W.2d 941 (1960) and Jansson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) are distinguishable. [1] "The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, but in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the motion to revoke and copy timely served on the probationer so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend." Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1973NOTES [1] On this point, appellant's cases of Harris v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 71 , 331 S.W.2d 941 (1960) and Jansson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) are distinguishable. [1] "The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, but in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the motion to revoke and copy timely served on the probationer so that he might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend." Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.