26 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1914–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cockrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 91 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 , 117 S.Ct. 1442 , 137 L.Ed.2d 548 (1997). | 3 | 3 |
Dooley v. Stategreen2 sentences2003In Dooley v. State, 65 S.W.3d 840, 843-44 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd), the Dallas court found that the use of a complete Geesa instruction when defense counsel did not object to its inclusion did not render a jury verdict erroneous as a matter of law. 2002See Brown v. State, 91 S.W.3d 353, 358-59 (Tex.App.-Eastland Aug. 2002, no pet. h.) (holding that it was not error to include a Geesa definition of reasonable doubt in the charge to the jury); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court did not err in giving exact instruction given in the present case because it was “not the sort of instruction prohibited by Paul- son”); Rodriguez v. State, No. 03-01-00573-CR, slip op. at 8-10, 2002 WL 1723875, at *4-6 , — S.W.3d-,-(Tex.App.-Austin July 26, 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court er | 3 | 3 |
Phillips v. Stategreen2 sentences2003As discussed above, holding the trial court erred by giving the exact instruction given in this case: Phillips , 72 S.W.3d at 721 . 2003As discussed above, holding the trial court erred by giving the exact instruction given in this case: Phillips, 72 S.W.3d at 721 . | 1 | 3 |
Nardone v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026See Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 [, 60 S. Ct. 266, 268 ] (1939)[.] [Emphases added.] [Record citations omitted.] Appellant’s broad criticism of his counsel and his specific complaint never references the exact standard that governs an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim predicated on a failure to file a motion to suppress. 2026See Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 [, 60 S. Ct. 266, 268 ] (1939)[.] [Emphases added.] [Record citations omitted.] Appellant’s broad criticism of his counsel and his specific complaint never references the exact standard that governs an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim predicated on a failure to file a motion to suppress. | 1 | 1 |
Kirsch, Scott Alangreen1 sentence2020Because the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a trial court does not err by including this exact instruction in a jury charge on guilt–innocence even though it has repeatedly stated it is better practice not to define that term, we therefore comply with the controlling authority of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as we understand it, and overrule Appellant’s first point on appeal. 2 Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bates v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.); Washington v. State, No. 05-14-00604-CR, 2015 WL 4178345 , at *7 (Tex. App.— Dallas July 10, 2015, no pet.) (not designated for publication). | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of N.T., a Childgreen1 sentence2016See In re N.T., 474 S.W.3d 465, 481 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Arrington, Charlesgreen2 sentences2015See Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges, 2011 Ed. § C 4.3 p. 64-65. 3 This exact instruction was found to be insufficient to constitute a “unanimity charge” by this Court in Arrington v. State, 413 S.W.3d 106, 118 (Tex. App. San Antonio – 2013) (finding that “[t]here was no unanimity instruction.”) (overruled on other grounds by Arrington v. State, 451 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 2015) (observing that the San Antonio Court of Appeals “accurately noted” that the “only mention of the word ‘unanimous’ in the entire charge” was the “boilerplate language regarding selection of the jury foreman that required the foreman to certify the jury’s verdict ‘when you have unanimously agreed upon a verdict.’” Id. 39 535-36 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Charles Arrington v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges, 2011 Ed. § C 4.3 p. 64-65. 3 This exact instruction was found to be insufficient to constitute a “unanimity charge” by this Court in Arrington v. State, 413 S.W.3d 106, 118 (Tex. App. San Antonio – 2013) (finding that “[t]here was no unanimity instruction.”) (overruled on other grounds by Arrington v. State, 451 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Mays v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Mays v. State , 318 S.W.3d 368, 389 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
McReynolds v. Gangel-Jacobgreen1 sentence2010See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 , 117 S.Ct. 1442 , 137 L.Ed.2d 548 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Hickmon v. Barnettgreen1 sentence2010See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 , 117 S.Ct. 1442 , 137 L.Ed.2d 548 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
McReynolds v. Gangel-Jacobgreen1 sentence2010See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 , 117 S.Ct. 1442 , 137 L.Ed.2d 548 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Carriere v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Brown v. State, 91 S.W.3d 353, 358-59 (Tex.App.-Eastland Aug. 2002, no pet. h.) (holding that it was not error to include a Geesa definition of reasonable doubt in the charge to the jury); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court did not err in giving exact instruction given in the present case because it was “not the sort of instruction prohibited by Paul- son”); Rodriguez v. State, No. 03-01-00573-CR, slip op. at 8-10, 2002 WL 1723875, at *4-6 , — S.W.3d-,-(Tex.App.-Austin July 26, 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court er | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Brown v. State, 91 S.W.3d 353, 358-59 (Tex.App.-Eastland Aug. 2002, no pet. h.) (holding that it was not error to include a Geesa definition of reasonable doubt in the charge to the jury); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court did not err in giving exact instruction given in the present case because it was “not the sort of instruction prohibited by Paul- son”); Rodriguez v. State, No. 03-01-00573-CR, slip op. at 8-10, 2002 WL 1723875, at *4-6 , — S.W.3d-,-(Tex.App.-Austin July 26, 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court er | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences1996This exact claim was addressed and rejected by this Court in Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1114 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1994). 1996This exact claim was addressed and rejected by this Court in Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1114 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Slaughter v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Appellant argues that the trial court’s instruction to the jury concerning credibility of witnesses is an impermissi ble comment on the weight of the evidence because “there was only one (1) witness to the act charged against Appellant — the Appellant himself.” In Slaughter v. State, 809 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1991, no pet.), we held this exact instruction violated Tex.Code CRIM.PROC.Ann. art. 86.14 (Vernon Supp.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Rucker v. Stategreen1 sentence1984But the Seaton case was overruled by Rucker v. State, 599 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (On State’s Motion for Rehearing), which provides the more exact standard: “Absent an express verbal threat, evidence was sufficient to prove aggravated rape, when a gun, knife, or a deadly weapon was used, or serious bodily injury was in fact inflicted.” Rogers v. State, 575 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) was cited with approval, but the analogous reference to the use of a knife indicated in Rogers and Rucker was predicated on the proven facts in Church v. State, 552 S.W.2d 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), w | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Troxel v. Granville
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 67 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . 2017Id. at 67 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Carranza v. State
green
2 sentences2006Carranza, 980 S.W.2d at 658 . 2006Carranza, 980 S.W.2d at 658 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF EL PASO v. Guerra
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 953 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Rodriguez v. State
green
1 sentence2002See Brown v. State, 91 S.W.3d 353, 358-59 (Tex.App.-Eastland Aug. 2002, no pet. h.) (holding that it was not error to include a Geesa definition of reasonable doubt in the charge to the jury); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court did not err in giving exact instruction given in the present case because it was “not the sort of instruction prohibited by Paul- son”); Rodriguez v. State, No. 03-01-00573-CR, slip op. at 8-10, 2002 WL 1723875, at *4-6 , — S.W.3d-,-(Tex.App.-Austin July 26, 2002, pet. filed) (holding trial court er | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Liegakos v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences1996This exact claim was addressed and rejected by this Court in Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1114 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1994). 1996This exact claim was addressed and rejected by this Court in Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1114 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Briseno v. Texas
green
2 sentences1996This exact claim was addressed and rejected by this Court in Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1114 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1994). 1996This exact claim was addressed and rejected by this Court in Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1114 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Kyles v. State
neutral
2 sentences1993During the voir dire examination of veniremember Dennis O'Quinn, appellant's attorney, in reference to the presumption of innocence, stated that "as he sits there now Mr. Zimmerman is innocent..." The prosecutor objected, stating that appellant "has a presumption of innocence." Appellant argues that the "obvious *97 implication of the prosecutor's objection and the sanctioning thereof by the Court was that the presumption of innocence did not actually mean that Appellant was innocent." Appellant directs our attention to Kyles v. State, 747 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.App.Beaumont 1988, no pet.) and furthe 1993During the voir dire examination of veniremember Dennis O’Quinn, appellant’s attorney, in reference to the presumption of innocence, stated that “as he sits there now Mr. Zimmerman is innocent ...” The prosecutor objected, stating that appellant “has a presumption of innocence.” Appellant argues that the “obvious implication of the prosecutor’s objection and the sanctioning thereof by the Court was that the presumption of innocence did not actually mean that Appellant was innocent.” Appellant directs our attention to Kyles v. State, 747 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1988, no pet.) and further a | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Rogers v. State
green
1 sentence1984But the Seaton case was overruled by Rucker v. State, 599 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (On State’s Motion for Rehearing), which provides the more exact standard: “Absent an express verbal threat, evidence was sufficient to prove aggravated rape, when a gun, knife, or a deadly weapon was used, or serious bodily injury was in fact inflicted.” Rogers v. State, 575 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) was cited with approval, but the analogous reference to the use of a knife indicated in Rogers and Rucker was predicated on the proven facts in Church v. State, 552 S.W.2d 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), w | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Church v. State
green
1 sentence1984But the Seaton case was overruled by Rucker v. State, 599 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (On State’s Motion for Rehearing), which provides the more exact standard: “Absent an express verbal threat, evidence was sufficient to prove aggravated rape, when a gun, knife, or a deadly weapon was used, or serious bodily injury was in fact inflicted.” Rogers v. State, 575 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) was cited with approval, but the analogous reference to the use of a knife indicated in Rogers and Rucker was predicated on the proven facts in Church v. State, 552 S.W.2d 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), w | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Phoenix Refining Co. v. Powell
green
1 sentence1969“If common-law negligence is raised, although there is no negligence per se in the light of the excuse, then an additional issue asking if the conduct was negligent is necessary.’’ The opinion in Phoenix Refining Co. v. Powell, 251 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1952, writ ref’d n. r. e.) quotes the law applicable herein as reviewed by Clarence Morris with approval: “ 'In many instances * * * the substitution of the criminal proscription for the reasonably-prudent-man formula is the use of a more exact standard to accomplish with greater smoothness the results that the common law had alw | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Fambrough v. Wagley
green
2 sentences1965Fambrough v. Wagley et al., 140 Tex. 577 , 169 S.W.2d 478 . 1965Fambrough v. Wagley et al., 140 Tex. 577 , 169 S.W.2d 478 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
National Surety Corp. v. Ladd
green
2 sentences1963In National Surety Corporation v. Ladd, 131 Tex. 295 , 115 S.W.2d 600 , the Supreme Court of Texas said: “In a statute like the one before us, it is difficult to define in detail an exact rule for every question that may be presented in the course of the administration of such statute. 1963In National Surety Corporation v. Ladd, 131 Tex. 295 , 115 S.W.2d 600 , the Supreme Court of Texas said: “In a statute like the one before us, it is difficult to define in detail an exact rule for every question that may be presented in the course of the administration of such statute. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Kennedy v. Kennedy neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Reeves v. Simpson neutral | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| Head v. Commonwealth neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Olcott & Read v. Choate neutral | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Earnest v. Glaser neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Babcock, Administrator v. Wolffarth neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Howard neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.