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.
26 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Debra C. Gunn, M.D., Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P.A., and Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates P.L.L.C. v. Andre McCoy, as Permanent Guardian of Shannon Miles McCoy, an Incapacitated Persongreen2 sentences2023See Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645, 666 (Tex. 2018) (“If a court ruling excludes evidence, a party must preserve error by filing an offer of proof informing the court of the substance of the excluded evidence. 2023HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on August 21, 2023 Opinion Delivered December 21, 2023 Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ. 40See Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645, 666 (Tex. 2018) (“If a court ruling excludes evidence, a party must preserve error by filing an offer of proof informing the court of the substance of the excluded evidence.”). 27 | 4 | 4 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Clark v. State , 365 S.W.3d 333 , 339 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) ; Fuller v. State , 253 S.W.3d 220 , 232 (Tex.Crim.App 2008) ("[A]lmost all error-even constitutional error-may be forfeited if the appellant failed to object"); Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). 2016Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012). | 2 | 3 |
Hoist Liftruck Mfg, Inc. v. Carruth-Doggett, Inc.green2 sentences2025See id. at 124-25 & nn. 23-24 (citing Emerson v. Fires Out, Inc., 735 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, no writ); Tex. Tech Univ. 2022See Hoist Liftruck Mfg., Inc. v. Carruth–Doggett, Inc., 485 S.W.3d 120 , 124–25 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (Frost, C.J., concurring) (compiling cases illustrating split of authority among courts of appeals 19 Appellees contend that nonetheless, the November Order satisfies the requirements of Rule 683 because injunction orders “need not be limited to a single document personally written by the judge on a single occasion” and thus we can also consider the October Order in our analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Brumit v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 644 (Tex. Crim. 2017See Brumit v. State , 206 S.W.3d 639 , 644 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Fuller v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Clark v. State , 365 S.W.3d 333 , 339 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) ; Fuller v. State , 253 S.W.3d 220 , 232 (Tex.Crim.App 2008) ("[A]lmost all error-even constitutional error-may be forfeited if the appellant failed to object"); Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). 2016Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012); Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220, 232 (Tex.Crim.App 2008)(“[A]lmost all error--even constitutional error--may be forfeited if the appellant failed to object”); TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Sherrygreen2 sentences2015Id. at 928 (citing In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350—51 (citing cases for the proposition [**29] that objections and errors ″must be preserved in the trial court″); Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2001) (refusing to consider constitutional arguments that petitioner did not assert in the trial court). 2015Id. at 928 (citing In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350 -51 (citing cases for the proposition that objections and errors "must be preserved in the trial court”); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sheny, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (refusing to consider constitutional arguments that petitioner did not assert in the trial court). | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). 2006See Wright v. State , 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. Crim . | 2 | 2 |
Emerson v. Fires Out, Inc.green1 sentence2025See id. at 124-25 & nn. 23-24 (citing Emerson v. Fires Out, Inc., 735 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, no writ); Tex. Tech Univ. | 1 | 1 |
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LPgreen1 sentence2024See id. (“[I]t is well established that a party must preserve error by invoking a procedure in the trial court that apprises the trial court of the party’s argument in a way that allows the trial court to decide the issue.”). | 1 | 1 |
Usaa Texas Lloyds Company v. Gail Menchacagreen2 sentences2022USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 519 (Tex. 2018) “[T]o preserve error based on fatally conflicting jury answers, parties must raise that objection before the trial court discharges the jury.” Id. at 518 ; see also Tex. R. 2022USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 519 (Tex. 2018) “[T]o preserve error based on fatally conflicting jury answers, parties must raise that objection before the trial court discharges the jury.” Id. at 518 ; see also Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Rezac v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Generally, a party must preserve error to complain about the admission of evidence of post-arrest silence, see Heidelberg, 144 S.W.3d at 542–43, and the invocation of the right to counsel, see Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Reynolds v. State, 423 S.W.3d 377, 383 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jbs Carriers, Inc. and James Lundry v. Trinette L. Washington, Sophia Renee Lenzy, Thomas Charles Lenzy, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Mary L. Turnergreen1 sentence2020App. P. 61.1(a); see JBS Carriers, 564 S.W.3d at 836 . 73 See Gunn, 554 S.W.3d at 666 (observing “a party must preserve error by filing an offer of proof informing the court of the substance of the excluded evidence”); Garden Ridge, L.P. v. Clear Lake Ctr., L.P., 504 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (explaining that by failing to create a 45 Generally, evidence about the fact parties have settled claims is not relevant to any of the other claims in a trial.74 Here, to preserve error, Sims’s bill should have included a copy of the settlement agreement and the quest | 1 | 1 |
Garden Ridge, L.P. v. Clear Lake Center, L.P.green1 sentence2020App. P. 61.1(a); see JBS Carriers, 564 S.W.3d at 836 . 73 See Gunn, 554 S.W.3d at 666 (observing “a party must preserve error by filing an offer of proof informing the court of the substance of the excluded evidence”); Garden Ridge, L.P. v. Clear Lake Ctr., L.P., 504 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (explaining that by failing to create a 45 Generally, evidence about the fact parties have settled claims is not relevant to any of the other claims in a trial.74 Here, to preserve error, Sims’s bill should have included a copy of the settlement agreement and the quest | 1 | 1 |
Peralta v. Stategreen1 sentence2017A party must preserve error by making a timely and specific objection. 4 TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Peralta v. State, 338 S.W.3d 598, 609 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2010, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2017A party must preserve error by making a timely and specific objection. 4 TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Peralta v. State, 338 S.W.3d 598, 609 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2010, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Young, 137 S.W.3d at 69 (stating that “the essential requirement is a timely, specific request that the trial court refuses”). | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Stategreen1 sentence2015However, “[a]lthough our legal system highly regards the right to cross-examine witnesses, a party must preserve error for appellate review.” Lopez v. State, 200 S.W.3d 246, 256 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 3 Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Living Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Penalvergreen1 sentence2014In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 760 (Tex. 2013); Living Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Penalver, 256 S.W.3d 678, 680 (Tex. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
in Re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Viscount Properties II, L.P., D/B/A Hoy Fox toyota/lexusgreen1 sentence2014In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 760 (Tex. 2013); Living Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Penalver, 256 S.W.3d 678, 680 (Tex. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Love v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Love , 861 S.W.2d at 900 B 01. | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Flores v. State, 33 S.W.3d 907, 926 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). 2 In Flores , we held that a Batson challenge is subject to the principles of ordinary procedural default. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re KAF
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 928 (citing In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350—51 (citing cases for the proposition [**29] that objections and errors ″must be preserved in the trial court″); Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2001) (refusing to consider constitutional arguments that petitioner did not assert in the trial court). 2015Id. at 928 (citing In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350 -51 (citing cases for the proposition that objections and errors "must be preserved in the trial court”); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sheny, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (refusing to consider constitutional arguments that petitioner did not assert in the trial court). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In Re BLD
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 928 (citing In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350—51 (citing cases for the proposition [**29] that objections and errors ″must be preserved in the trial court″); Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2001) (refusing to consider constitutional arguments that petitioner did not assert in the trial court). 2015Id. at 928 (citing In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350 -51 (citing cases for the proposition that objections and errors "must be preserved in the trial court”); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sheny, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (refusing to consider constitutional arguments that petitioner did not assert in the trial court). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Heidelberg v. State
green
1 sentence2021Generally, a party must preserve error to complain about the admission of evidence of post-arrest silence, see Heidelberg, 144 S.W.3d at 542–43, and the invocation of the right to counsel, see Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Saldano v. State
green
1 sentence2015As Presiding Judge Keller said in her dissent to Blue, it should be “[t]he kind of error involved, not the egregiousness of a particular error, [that] determines in Texas state court whether a party must preserve error by lodging an objection.”28 Those rights categorized as non-forfeitable are typically narrowly drawn and easy to recognize without a complete analysis of the record—e.g., jurisdiction over the person, jurisdiction over the subject matter, the requirement that a district court conduct its proceedings at the county seat, and the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws.29 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.