30 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1902–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Id. at 122-23 . 1983In Lee v. State, 555 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) that judge, as a former prosecuting attorney, wrote a letter to defense counsel relative to a possible plea; he had no personal knowledge of the case but relied upon another State attorney's assessment of the case. | 1 | 3 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Haas v. State, 494 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“An appellate court must review the trial court’s ruling in light of what was before the trial court at the time the ruling was made.”). 37 State, No. 12-17-00124-CR, 2018 WL 6321081 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 4, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding same where counsel filed two separate motions premised on appellant’s recurring complaints that counsel was failing to communicate with him or spend time on his case); Anderson v. State, No. 02-17-00044- CR, 2018 WL 359635 , at | 1 | 1 |
Dallas County v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Dallas County v. regarding possible discrimination but indicated Gonzales, 183 S.W.3d 94 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, that the TCHR could pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Haas v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Haas v. State, 494 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“An appellate court must review the trial court’s ruling in light of what was before the trial court at the time the ruling was made.”). 37 State, No. 12-17-00124-CR, 2018 WL 6321081 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 4, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding same where counsel filed two separate motions premised on appellant’s recurring complaints that counsel was failing to communicate with him or spend time on his case); Anderson v. State, No. 02-17-00044- CR, 2018 WL 359635 , at | 1 | 1 |
Randy Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P.green1 sentence2023See generally Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193, 204 (Tex. 2015) (no need to warn against known danger); Hicks v. Humble Oil & Refin. | 1 | 1 |
White, Garcia Glengreen1 sentence2020App. 2018) (quoting from Ex parte White, 506 S.W.3d 39, 44 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte Kussmaulgreen1 sentence2020In Prince v. State, this Court held that a prosecutor was “of counsel for the State” if he “participated in any manner in the preparation or investigation of the case.”35 In Metts v. State, we explained that the prosecutor must have “investigated, advised or participated” as counsel in the case, or, stated another way, his “involvement must have arisen to a level of active participation.”36 We surveyed the caselaw relating to Article 30.01 and observed a variety of relatively minor acts that would make a prosecutor qualify as “of counsel” for the State.37 We held that merely signing a jury-wai | 1 | 1 |
Alenia Spazio, S.P.A. v. Reidgreen1 sentence2019See Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 62 (even considering “voluminous” extent of communications, foreign entity did not purposefully avail itself of Texas’s jurisdiction because its “contacts with Texas were too fortuitous and attenuated”); Alenia Spazio, S.p.A. v. Reid, 130 S.W.3d 201, 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (“[N]umerous telephone and facsimile communications with people in Texas relating to an alleged contract do not establish minimum contacts.”). | 1 | 1 |
Jason R. Searcy, as Trustee of the Exempt Assets Trust v. Parex Resources, Inc.green1 sentence2019See Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 62 (even considering “voluminous” extent of communications, foreign entity did not purposefully avail itself of Texas’s jurisdiction because its “contacts with Texas were too fortuitous and attenuated”); Alenia Spazio, S.p.A. v. Reid, 130 S.W.3d 201, 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (“[N]umerous telephone and facsimile communications with people in Texas relating to an alleged contract do not establish minimum contacts.”). | 1 | 1 |
Angela Michelle Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Harris v. State, 402 S.W.3d 758 , 760–61 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (matters involving disclosure and nondisclosure of criminal history record information under Texas Government Code are treated as civil, not criminal). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garner v. State
green
2 sentences2012Garner, 864 S.W.2d at 99 . 2011Garner, 864 S.W.2d at 99 . | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Abdygapparova v. State
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Calvery v. Calvery
green
2 sentences1950They more readily seize hold of any qualifying or super-added words, varying the sense of the technical ./terms in order to make them words of designation, than is done in England.’ ■ “And in Calvery v. Calvery, 122 Tex. 204, 212 , 55 S.W.2d 527, 530 , Justice Sharp, then Commissioner, writing, an opinion adopted by the court, said: ‘It is only when the facts bring a case under the strict letter of the rule that the courts of this state will apply and enforce it.’ “The prevailing inclination has been away from the application of a technical rule and to the ascertainment of the true intention o 1950They more readily seize hold of any qualifying or super-added words, varying the sense of the technical ./terms in order to make them words of designation, than is done in England.’ ■ “And in Calvery v. Calvery, 122 Tex. 204, 212 , 55 S.W.2d 527, 530 , Justice Sharp, then Commissioner, writing, an opinion adopted by the court, said: ‘It is only when the facts bring a case under the strict letter of the rule that the courts of this state will apply and enforce it.’ “The prevailing inclination has been away from the application of a technical rule and to the ascertainment of the true intention o | 2 | 1948–1950 |
Gevinson v. Manhattan Construction Co. of Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2015In Gevinson v. Manhattan Construction Co. of Okl., 449 S.W.2d 458 (Tex. 1969) the Court that “It has been said that one who introduces a document vouches for its accuracy and will not be allowed to impeach or contradict its recitals.” Though Caziers fee affidavit may not meet the formal requirements of judicial estopple, Caziers fee affidavit is some evidence. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board and Nancy Leshikar, in Her Official Capacity as General Counsel of the Texas Medical Board
green
1 sentence2015The court of appeals properly held that the letter was a rule under the APA that bypassed notice-and-comment rulemaking, and is thus invalid under Section 2001.035 of the APA. 453 S.W.3d at 620 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ex Parte Lemke
green
1 sentence2001"The government may of course, in proper cases, seek to demonstrate that intervening circumstances have so changed the factual premises of its original offer that, with just cause, it would have modified or withdrawn its offer prior to its expiration date.” Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d at 798 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2001The letter was addressed to defense counsel, but the heading read “Dear Leon.” During the hearing on pretrial motions, it was established that the name "Leon" appeared in the heading on the letter to defense counsel by mistake. 3 . 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . 4 . 2001The letter was addressed to defense counsel, but the heading read “Dear Leon.” During the hearing on pretrial motions, it was established that the name "Leon" appeared in the heading on the letter to defense counsel by mistake. 3 . 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . 4 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Nguyen v. Kim
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 154 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Moreno v. State
green
2 sentences1996This led a majority of this Court, sitting en banc, to follow Jones and strictly enforce the letter of rule 40(b)(1) in Moreno v. State, 866 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (holding a general notice of appeal insufficient to allow review of pretrial motions after plea pursuant to agreed plea bargain), albeit reluctantly and with much urging that the Court of Criminal Appeals change the rule. 1996This led a majority of this Court, sitting en banc, to follow Jones and strictly enforce the letter of rule 40(b)(1) in Moreno v. State, 866 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (holding a general notice of appeal insufficient to allow review of pretrial motions after plea pursuant to agreed plea bargain), albeit reluctantly and with much urging that the Court of Criminal Appeals change the rule. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Alfred Ray Bradshaw v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence1987None of these facts are present in the instant case. [8] We are aware of the decision in Bradshaw v. McCotter, 796 F.2d 100 (5th Cir.1986), which modified the earlier decision, 785 F.2d 1327 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Alfred Ray Bradshaw v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence1987None of these facts are present in the instant case. [8] We are aware of the decision in Bradshaw v. McCotter, 796 F.2d 100 (5th Cir.1986), which modified the earlier decision, 785 F.2d 1327 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Womacks v. Horne
neutral
1 sentence1981Rule 434 TRCP; Whited v. Powell, 155 Tex. 210 , 285 S.W.2d 364 ; Womacks v. Home, CCA (Waco) NWH, Tex.Civ.App. 300 S.W.2d 765 ; Lockett v. Redi-Fuel Transport, Inc., CCA (Eastland) NRE, Tex.Civ.App. 558 S.W.2d 902 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lockett v. Redi-Fuel Transport, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1981Rule 434 TRCP; Whited v. Powell, 155 Tex. 210 , 285 S.W.2d 364 ; Womacks v. Home, CCA (Waco) NWH, Tex.Civ.App. 300 S.W.2d 765 ; Lockett v. Redi-Fuel Transport, Inc., CCA (Eastland) NRE, Tex.Civ.App. 558 S.W.2d 902 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Whited v. Powell
green
2 sentences1981Rule 434 TRCP; Whited v. Powell, 155 Tex. 210 , 285 S.W.2d 364 ; Womacks v. Home, CCA (Waco) NWH, Tex.Civ.App. 300 S.W.2d 765 ; Lockett v. Redi-Fuel Transport, Inc., CCA (Eastland) NRE, Tex.Civ.App. 558 S.W.2d 902 . 1981Rule 434 TRCP; Whited v. Powell, 155 Tex. 210 , 285 S.W.2d 364 ; Womacks v. Home, CCA (Waco) NWH, Tex.Civ.App. 300 S.W.2d 765 ; Lockett v. Redi-Fuel Transport, Inc., CCA (Eastland) NRE, Tex.Civ.App. 558 S.W.2d 902 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Cox v. State
neutral
2 sentences1977This reasoning ignores the spirit of the rule: “The rule of circumstantial evidence applies to all the facts in a case, and not to any fact or set of facts . . . .” Cox v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 421 , 278 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Cr.App.1955). 1977This reasoning ignores the spirit of the rule: “The rule of circumstantial evidence applies to all the facts in a case, and not to any fact or set of facts . . . .” Cox v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 421 , 278 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Cr.App.1955). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Benefit Ass'n of Ry. Employees v. O'Gorman
neutral
2 sentences1961Employees v. O'Gorman, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 215 , writ ref. n. r. e. It will be noted that the letter of waiver was written within 91 days from the date the construction of the storm sewer began, and that such letter states that the insured had sustained loss not covered under the insurance policy contract. 1961Employees v. O’Gorman, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 215 , writ ref. n. r. e. It will be noted that the letter of waiver was written within 91 days from the date the construction of the storm sewer began, and that such letter states that the insured had sustained loss not covered under the insurance policy contract. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Crist v. Morgan green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Brown v. Bryant neutral | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Peters v. Rice neutral | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Busha v. Fortson
neutral
1 sentence1948In the following cases it was held that the language of the instrument involved in each brought the case within the rule in Shelley’s Case: Busha v. Fortson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 325 ; Lacey v. Floyd, 99 Tex. 112 , 87 S.W. 665 ; Crist v. Morgan, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 659 ; Peters v. Rice, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 1181 , writ refused; Pearce v. Pearce, 104 Tex. 73 , 134 S.W. 210 ; Scott v. Brin, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 500 , 107 S.W. 565 , writ refused; Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 454 , 44 S.W. 399 , writ refused; and Davis v. First Nat. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Scott v. Brin
neutral
2 sentences1948In the following cases it was held that the language of the instrument involved in each brought the case within the rule in Shelley’s Case: Busha v. Fortson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 325 ; Lacey v. Floyd, 99 Tex. 112 , 87 S.W. 665 ; Crist v. Morgan, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 659 ; Peters v. Rice, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 1181 , writ refused; Pearce v. Pearce, 104 Tex. 73 , 134 S.W. 210 ; Scott v. Brin, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 500 , 107 S.W. 565 , writ refused; Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 454 , 44 S.W. 399 , writ refused; and Davis v. First Nat. 1948In the following cases it was held that the language of the instrument involved in each brought the case within the rule in Shelley’s Case: Busha v. Fortson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 325 ; Lacey v. Floyd, 99 Tex. 112 , 87 S.W. 665 ; Crist v. Morgan, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 659 ; Peters v. Rice, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 1181 , writ refused; Pearce v. Pearce, 104 Tex. 73 , 134 S.W. 210 ; Scott v. Brin, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 500 , 107 S.W. 565 , writ refused; Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 454 , 44 S.W. 399 , writ refused; and Davis v. First Nat. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Lacey v. Floyd
green
2 sentences1948In the following cases it was held that the language of the instrument involved in each brought the case within the rule in Shelley’s Case: Busha v. Fortson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 325 ; Lacey v. Floyd, 99 Tex. 112 , 87 S.W. 665 ; Crist v. Morgan, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 659 ; Peters v. Rice, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 1181 , writ refused; Pearce v. Pearce, 104 Tex. 73 , 134 S.W. 210 ; Scott v. Brin, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 500 , 107 S.W. 565 , writ refused; Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 454 , 44 S.W. 399 , writ refused; and Davis v. First Nat. 1948In the following cases it was held that the language of the instrument involved in each brought the case within the rule in Shelley’s Case: Busha v. Fortson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 325 ; Lacey v. Floyd, 99 Tex. 112 , 87 S.W. 665 ; Crist v. Morgan, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 659 ; Peters v. Rice, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 1181 , writ refused; Pearce v. Pearce, 104 Tex. 73 , 134 S.W. 210 ; Scott v. Brin, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 500 , 107 S.W. 565 , writ refused; Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 454 , 44 S.W. 399 , writ refused; and Davis v. First Nat. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Pearce v. Pearce
green
2 sentences1948In the following cases it was held that the language of the instrument involved in each brought the case within the rule in Shelley’s Case: Busha v. Fortson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 325 ; Lacey v. Floyd, 99 Tex. 112 , 87 S.W. 665 ; Crist v. Morgan, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 659 ; Peters v. Rice, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 1181 , writ refused; Pearce v. Pearce, 104 Tex. 73 , 134 S.W. 210 ; Scott v. Brin, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 500 , 107 S.W. 565 , writ refused; Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 454 , 44 S.W. 399 , writ refused; and Davis v. First Nat. 1948In the following cases it was held that the language of the instrument involved in each brought the case within the rule in Shelley’s Case: Busha v. Fortson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 325 ; Lacey v. Floyd, 99 Tex. 112 , 87 S.W. 665 ; Crist v. Morgan, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 659 ; Peters v. Rice, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 1181 , writ refused; Pearce v. Pearce, 104 Tex. 73 , 134 S.W. 210 ; Scott v. Brin, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 500 , 107 S.W. 565 , writ refused; Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 454 , 44 S.W. 399 , writ refused; and Davis v. First Nat. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Pendley v. Berry & Towles green | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Quinn v. Home Owners' Loan Corp. neutral | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Ferguson v. Sanders green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Hamilton v. Booher green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Farmers' Seed & Gin Co. v. Brooks green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Port Iron & Supply Co. v. Casualty Underwriters neutral | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Wallace v. First National Bank of Paris green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Federal Land Bank v. Little green | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Texas Mexican Railway Co. v. Scott neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Ætna Life Ins. v. Burnett green | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. v. Holden neutral | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.