31 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gaston v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Gaston, 136 S.W.3d at 318 (failing to comply with Gaston's requirements). 2011See Gaston, 136 S.W.3d at 318 (failing to comply with Gaston’s requirements). -6- 04-10-00122-CR 3. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences2010App. 2009) (citing State v. Dixon , 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. 2010App. 2009) (citing State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Amador v. Stategreen2 sentences2010We first address the merits of Perez's motion to suppress. (2) "A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, like any ruling on the admission of evidence, is subject to review on appeal for abuse of discretion." Amador v. State , 275 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim. 2010We first address the merits of Perez’s motion to suppress.2 “A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, like any ruling on the admission of evidence, is subject to review on appeal for abuse of discretion.” Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Salazar v. Stategreen2 sentences2009We review the trial court's denial of Perez's motion for new trial under the abuse of discretion standard, Salazar v. State , 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim. 2009A N N . art. 42.12, § 5(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2008). 11 We review the trial court’s denial of Perez’s motion for new trial under the abuse of discretion standard, Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
West v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See West , 702 S.W.2d at 634-35 . 2009See West, 702 S.W.2d at 634-35 . | 2 | 2 |
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Webb , 232 S.W.3d at 112 . 2009See Webb , 232 S.W.3d at 112 . | 2 | 2 |
Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Azuagreen2 sentences2008See Azua, 198 S.W.3d at 815 . 2008See Azua , 198 S.W.3d at 815 . | 2 | 2 |
Alzarka v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Alzarka v. State , 90 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex. Crim. 2004See Alzarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (finding that record directly contradicted and rebutted any presumption raised by terms of boiler-plate waiver of right to appeal contained in plea papers). | 2 | 2 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Hawkins , 112 S.W.3d at 344 (citing Martinez v. State , 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. 2004See Hawkins, 112 S.W.3d at 344 (citing Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)). | 2 | 2 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). *289 (1)Jurisdictional Defects Our review of the record reveals that the trial court had jurisdiction over the case. 2004See Hawkins, 112 S.W.3d at 344 (citing Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)). | 2 | 2 |
CMH HOMES v. Perezgreen2 sentences2016See CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 449 (“While it may be argued that by appointing an arbitrator the order implicitly compels the parties to arbitration, the order does not explicitly grant Perez’s motion to compel and does not explicitly compel the parties to arbitrate their dispute.”). 2015Parallel Citations 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1098 Footnotes 1 After receiving Perez's motion to compel arbitration, CMH Homes presented three names for consideration as potential arbitrators. | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Williams, 522 S.W.2d at 485 ; Broussard, 517 S.W.3d at 816 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lauro Eduardo Ruizgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Ruiz, 535 S.W.3d 590, 594 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017), aff’d, 577 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ruiz, Lauro Eduardogreen1 sentence2024See State v. Ruiz, 535 S.W.3d 590, 594 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017), aff’d, 577 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Johnson, 352 S.W.3d at 227 ; Williams, 154 S.W.3d at 802 . | 1 | 1 |
Jasper v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413, 421 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hatten v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Applicable Law “A criminal defendant has a right to the assistance of counsel in state court, guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Hatten v. State, 71 S.W.3d 332, 333 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See King, 29 S.W.3d at 566 . | 1 | 1 |
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrichgreen1 sentence2022See Matzen v. McLane, __ S.W.3d __, 2021 WL 5977218 , at *4 (Tex. 2021) (“Plaintiffs who seek to bypass sovereign immunity using an ultra vires claim must plead, and ultimately prove, that the defendant government official ‘acted without legal authority or failed to perform a ministerial act.’”) (quoting City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dedric Lemon Harborgreen1 sentence2022See id. art. 42.14 (“In a misdemeanor case, the judgment and sentence may be rendered in the absence of the defendant.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castleberrygreen1 sentence2020See Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d at 465 . | 1 | 1 |
Weems, Daniel Jamesgreen1 sentence2020Weems v. State, 493 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Darling v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Licon v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Licon v. State, 99 S.W.3d 918, 926 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, no pet.) Pursuant to Rule 21.4, Perez’s motion for new trial was due not later than April 30, 2018. | 1 | 1 |
| Mallett v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ladd v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Griffith v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Because Perez’s motion for new trial “was filed outside the thirty-day window prescribed by Rule 21.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion was untimely and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.” Perez v. State, 261 S.W.3d 760, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d); see also Griffith v. State, 507 S.W.3d 720, 727 (Tex. Crim. 2019Because Perez’s motion for new trial “was filed outside the thirty-day window prescribed by Rule 21.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion was untimely and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.” Perez v. State, 261 S.W.3d 760, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d); see also Griffith v. State, 507 S.W.3d 720, 727 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Perezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Soliz v. Nueces Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cantu v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alabama v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broussard, Kenneth
green
2 sentences2025Because Perez was eligible for deferred-adjudication probation, defense counsel’s advice was accurate, and Perez was informed to make a “voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action” available to him.1 Broussard, 517 S.W.3d at 816 . 1 In his closing argument at the sentencing hearing, Perez’s defense counsel broadly used the term “probation”; however, he clarified exactly the type of probation Perez sought from the trial court: deferred-adjudication probation. 7 In light of the whole record and totality of the circumstances, we conclude that defense counsel properly 2025See Williams, 522 S.W.2d at 485 ; Broussard, 517 S.W.3d at 816 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda
green
1 sentence2024Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 224 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Antonio Parra Perez v. State
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 690 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2023See Johnson, 352 S.W.3d at 227 ; Williams, 154 S.W.3d at 802 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Honorable Hope Andrade v. Don Venable
green
1 sentence2022No particular taxpayer has a unique stake in such a claim, which alleges “a pecuniary injury to the taxpayers generally.” Andrade, 372 S.W.3d at 138 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence2019“The right to a severance under the current version of Section 3.04 is absolute, except for joinder of sexually based offenses that are governed by Section 3.03 of the Texas Penal Code.” Darling v. State, 262 S.W.3d 920, 926 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2008, pet. ref’d) (quoting Scott v. State, 235 S.W.3d 255 , 257–58 (Tex. Crim. 12 App. 2007 )) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Duckett v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Perez v. Williamson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Kothe v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Glass v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.