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.
28 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Resendiz v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate courts presume that the jury follows instructions); Roe, 660 S.W.3d at 785; see also Arevalo, 675 S.W. 3d at 851; Wishert v. State, 654 S.W.3d 317 , 334 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, pet. ref’d). 2023See Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tex. Crim. | 9 | 9 |
Archie v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Archie v. State, 340 S.W.3d 734, 741 (Tex. Crim. 2023See Archie v. State, 340 S.W.3d 734, 741 (Tex. Crim. | 6 | 6 |
Gardner v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). 2026Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). | 3 | 3 |
Nichols v. Statered2 sentences1993Nichols v. State, 754 S.W.2d 185, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cer t. denied, 488 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 819 , 102 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989). 1992Nichols v. State, 754 S.W.2d 185, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 819 , 102 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989). | 3 | 3 |
Duncan v. Smithgreen2 sentences1992Duncan v. Smith, 393 S.W.2d 798, 805 (Tex.1965); Hughes, 591 S.W.2d at 634 . 1991Duncan v. Smith , 393 S.W.2d 798, 805 (Tex. 1965); Hughes , 591 S.W.2d at 634 . | 2 | 2 |
William Brady Roe v. the State of Texasgreen1 sentence2024See Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate courts presume that the jury follows instructions); Roe, 660 S.W.3d at 785; see also Arevalo, 675 S.W. 3d at 851; Wishert v. State, 654 S.W.3d 317 , 334 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Rey Arevalo v. the State of Texasgreen1 sentence2024See Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate courts presume that the jury follows instructions); Roe, 660 S.W.3d at 785; see also Arevalo, 675 S.W. 3d at 851; Wishert v. State, 654 S.W.3d 317 , 334 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Waldo v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Waldo v. State, 746 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Colburn v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Colburn v. State , 966 S.W.2d at 520 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pride Transport Co., Inc. v. Hughes
green
2 sentences1992Duncan v. Smith, 393 S.W.2d 798, 805 (Tex.1965); Hughes, 591 S.W.2d at 634 . 1991Duncan v. Smith , 393 S.W.2d 798, 805 (Tex. 1965); Hughes , 591 S.W.2d at 634 . | 2 | 1991–1992 |
Jesse Beam v. State
green
1 sentence2024Moreover, any 35 impermissible inference from evidence can generally be minimized through a limiting instruction like the one given here, see Beam, 447 S.W.3d at 405 , and we must presume that the jury obeyed that instruction and the one in the jury charge, Gaytan, 331 S.W.3d at 228 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shawn Ray Wishert v. the State of Texas
green
1 sentence2024See Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate courts presume that the jury follows instructions); Roe, 660 S.W.3d at 785; see also Arevalo, 675 S.W. 3d at 851; Wishert v. State, 654 S.W.3d 317 , 334 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gaytan v. State
green
1 sentence2024Moreover, any 35 impermissible inference from evidence can generally be minimized through a limiting instruction like the one given here, see Beam, 447 S.W.3d at 405 , and we must presume that the jury obeyed that instruction and the one in the jury charge, Gaytan, 331 S.W.3d at 228 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
University of Texas at Austin v. Hinton
green
1 sentence2014Hinton, 822 S.W.2d at 201 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Joubert v. Nebraska
green
1 sentence1992Nichols v. State, 754 S.W.2d 185, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), *301 cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1019 , 109 S.Ct. 819 , 102 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 905 , 108 S.Ct. 248 , 98 L.Ed.2d 206 (1987). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Transport Insurance Company v. Burditt
neutral
1 sentence1965Walker v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, 155 Tex. 617 , 291 S.W.2d 298 ; Transport Insurance Company v. Burditt (Tex.Civ.App.), 294 S.W.2d 248 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Walker v. Texas Employers' Insurance Association
green
2 sentences1965Walker v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, 155 Tex. 617 , 291 S.W.2d 298 ; Transport Insurance Company v. Burditt (Tex.Civ.App.), 294 S.W.2d 248 . 1965Walker v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, 155 Tex. 617 , 291 S.W.2d 298 ; Transport Insurance Company v. Burditt (Tex.Civ.App.), 294 S.W.2d 248 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Hobbs v. Slayton
neutral
1 sentence1954Aultman v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co., Tex.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 596 ; Hobbs v. Slayton, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W.2d 838 (er. ref. n.r.e.) Furthermore, it will be presumed on appeal that a jury obeyed the instruction of the trial court not to consider objectionable argument unless the argument is so inflammatory that it cannot be cured by instruction. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Bishop
green
1 sentence1954Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Bishop, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 651 (er. ref. n.r.e.) Fauth v. First Nat. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Aultman v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co.
green
1 sentence1954Aultman v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co., Tex.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 596 ; Hobbs v. Slayton, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W.2d 838 (er. ref. n.r.e.) Furthermore, it will be presumed on appeal that a jury obeyed the instruction of the trial court not to consider objectionable argument unless the argument is so inflammatory that it cannot be cured by instruction. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.