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.
29 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1886–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hammock v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Hammock v. State, 211 S.W.3d 874, 878 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.). 2011Hammock v. State, 211 S.W.3d 874, 878 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 2006, no pet.). | 24 | 24 |
Camacho v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 532 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). [8]Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. 2011Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 532 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). [8] Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. | 4 | 4 |
Barrera v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Barrera v. State, 291 S.W.3d 515 , 518 Amarillo 2009, no pet.); Perez v. State, 280 S.W.3d 886 , 887 9 Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. 2010Barrera v. State, 291 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2009, no pet.); Perez v. State, 280 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2009, no pet.). 2 Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. | 2 | 2 |
Meraz v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Meraz v. State , 785 S.W.2d 146, 154-55 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). [5] Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. 2006See Meraz v. State , 785 S.W.2d 146, 154-55 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). [5] Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. | 2 | 2 |
Pena v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Pena v. State , 191 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Pena v. State, 191 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Perez v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Barrera v. State, 291 S.W.3d 515 , 518 Amarillo 2009, no pet.); Perez v. State, 280 S.W.3d 886 , 887 9 Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. 2010Barrera v. State, 291 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2009, no pet.); Perez v. State, 280 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2009, no pet.). 2 Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. | 1 | 2 |
Sims v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Sims v. State, 12 S.W.3d 499, 500 (Tex.App.(Dallas 1999, pet. ref(d); Hayden v. State, 928 S.W.2d 229, 231 (Tex.App.(Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref(d). [15]Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. | 1 | 1 |
Hayden v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Sims v. State, 12 S.W.3d 499, 500 (Tex.App.(Dallas 1999, pet. ref(d); Hayden v. State, 928 S.W.2d 229, 231 (Tex.App.(Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref(d). [15]Courts of appeals may review unassigned error in criminal cases, particularly where the record discloses error that should be addressed in the interest of justice. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grant v. Guernsey
green
1 sentence1965The record discloses that this claim was advanced by the appellant himself upon authority of Grant v. Guernsey, 10 Cir., 63 F.2d 163 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Calvin P. Stewart v. United States of America and Errol Leslie Merriman
green
1 sentence1965Grant has been overruled by the circuit deciding it in Stewart v. U. S., 10 Cir., 267 F.2d 378 , cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1941In Southern Bldg., etc., Ass’n v. Jackson, Tex.Civ.App., 290 S.W. 266, 268 , this Court, speaking through our lamented late Chief Justice Jones, said: “Assuming that the oral agreement of January 2, 1922, was obnoxious to this statute when it was entered into, yet after appellee had performed all that the agreement contemplated that he should perform and appellant had received the entire benefit of appellee’s performance, can said statute now be invoked to relieve appellant from the performance of his part of the contract by the execution of the release? | 1 | 1941–1941 |
McWilliams v. State
green
1 sentence1886We do not dispute the settled rule that “ the admission of illegal evidence of an important fact material and pertinent to the issue,. and which is additional to other facts legally in evidence, is erroneous, and that a conviction in such case will not be permitted to stand, however certain it may be that the jury would have found a verdict of guilty upon other sufficient evidence adduced on the trial.” (Mc Williams v. The State, 44 Texas, 116 .) But in this case the rule does not apply, because in the light of the facts the illegal evidence was neither important, material nor pertinent, and t | 1 | 1886–1886 |
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.
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.