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.
25 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daniel R. Meyers, Jr. v. The M/v Eugenio C, Its Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc., and Costa Armatori, S.P.A.green2 sentences2015Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988). 2015Coghian v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806 . 811 (5th Cir. 1988). | 3 | 4 |
Milton v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Milton, 572 S.W.3d at 239 ; Brown, 270 S.W.3d at 570 . 2022See Milton, 572 S.W.3d at 239 ; Brown, 270 S.W.3d at 570 . | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 79 , 83–84 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d) (noting that “[t]he responsive nature of the State’s comment emerges when the arguments of defense counsel and the prosecutor are compared”). 2017See Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 79 , 83–84 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d) (noting that “[t]he responsive nature of the State’s comment emerges when the arguments of defense counsel and the prosecutor are compared”). | 2 | 2 |
Travis Central Appraisal District v. Normangreen1 sentence2023See Manbeck, 381 S.W.3d at 530-32 (holding that although fee-shifting provision had been included in list of adopted provisions, new 15 no-waiver provision made Political Subdivisions Law too internally inconsistent to constitute unambiguous immunity waiver); Norman, 342 S.W.3d at 57-59 (holding that inclusion in list of adopted provisions and election-of-remedies provision were not enough to constitute unambiguous immunity waiver in light of new no-waiver provision). | 1 | 1 |
Charles Manbeck v. Austin Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2023See Manbeck, 381 S.W.3d at 530-32 (holding that although fee-shifting provision had been included in list of adopted provisions, new 15 no-waiver provision made Political Subdivisions Law too internally inconsistent to constitute unambiguous immunity waiver); Norman, 342 S.W.3d at 57-59 (holding that inclusion in list of adopted provisions and election-of-remedies provision were not enough to constitute unambiguous immunity waiver in light of new no-waiver provision). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2018A trial court has discretion to rule on a plea to the jurisdiction “at a preliminary hearing or await a fuller development of the case,” but 8 Both parties presented essentially the same arguments at the hearing on Orr’s Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform the Judgment. 9 Orr sought rulings on the following motions prior to the court’s decision on the plea: amended motion to enforce Rule 11 discovery agreement, motion to compel, and motion for continuance. 10 trial courts should be “mindful that this determination must be made as soon as practicable.” Id. at 227 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Swain v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Id. at 21 (noting trial court was at times uncertain as to what rights Appellant was arguing had been violated); Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359, 365 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Education Agency v. Leepergreen1 sentence2015Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 446 (Tex. 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Leal v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Though the parties’ arguments at the hearing focused on another ground in the motion, to preserve error a movant need not discuss all the grounds at the hearing.5 All that is required 1 See Leal v. State, 452 S.W.3d 14, 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014), vacated, 456 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 2015). 2 Id. 3 Leal v. State, 456 S.W.3d 567, 568 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of R.H.\Jack\" Finneygreen1 sentence2015See Estate of Finney, 424 S.W.3d at 622–23. | 1 | 1 |
Jonathan Albert Leal v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Though the parties’ arguments at the hearing focused on another ground in the motion, to preserve error a movant need not discuss all the grounds at the hearing.5 All that is required 1 See Leal v. State, 452 S.W.3d 14, 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014), vacated, 456 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Banda v. Garcia Ex Rel. Garciagreen1 sentence2013See Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1997) (party waives objection to attorney’s statements not being under oath by failing to object when the party knows or should know that an objection is necessary). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2012State v. Davis , 349 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bridge v. Stategreen1 sentence2009The prosecutor argued that Cook’s attorney had advised him that he was subject to 46 Bridge v. State, 726 S.W.2d 558, 567 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
City of Waco v. Kelleygreen1 sentence2008City of Houston, 197 S.W.3d at 324. 3 Therefore, our review must be confined to the City’s arguments that challenge the hearing examiner’s jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss at all (as contrasted from those that contend, in effect, that the hearing examiner ruled incorrectly that the acting fire chief lacked the necessary authority by misapplying applicable law). 4 The City first challenges the hearing examiner’s jurisdiction to rule on Clark’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Clark waived his objection to the acting fire chiefs lack of authority to suspend him by failing to inc | 1 | 1 |
Albiar v. Stategreen1 sentence1994Albiar v. State, 739 S.W.2d 360, 362 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2022See Milton, 572 S.W.3d at 239 ; Brown, 270 S.W.3d at 570 . 2022See Milton, 572 S.W.3d at 239 ; Brown, 270 S.W.3d at 570 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Robert G. Houle v. Capital One Bank (USA), N. A.
green
2 sentences2020“The rules of error preservation applicable during trial also apply in summary- judgment proceedings.” Houle, 570 S.W.3d at 369 . (citing TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a)). “[T]o preserve a complaint for appellate review: (1) a party must complain to the trial court by way of a timely request, objection, or motion; and (2) the trial court must rule or refuse to rule on the request, objection, or motion.” Id. (citing TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a)). 2020“The rules of error preservation applicable during trial also apply in summary- judgment proceedings.” Houle, 570 S.W.3d at 369 . (citing TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a)). “[T]o preserve a complaint for appellate review: (1) a party must complain to the trial court by way of a timely request, objection, or motion; and (2) the trial court must rule or refuse to rule on the request, objection, or motion.” Id. (citing TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2015THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, Appeal from the 36th District Court of Live Oak County, Texas Cause Number L-00-0078-2-CR-B BRIEF OF DEFENDANT - APPELLANT Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) Appellant in the above referenced cause number files this Anders Brief and would show the Court the following: After a detailed search of the record, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has been unable to find any non-frivolous error.4 4 A frivolous appeal has been defined as an appeal in which the result is obvious or the arguments of error are wholly without merit. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
green
1 sentence2015The Texas Supreme Court, in rejecting a state agency’s arguments for immunity in a jurisdictional plea, made clear this in Patel: . . . in Heinrich we clarified that HN5 "[f]or claims challenging the validity of . . . statutes . . . the Declaratory Judgment Act requires that the relevant governmental entities be made parties, and thereby waives immunity." Id. (citing Tex. Educ. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Klima
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Mathis v. Lockwood
green
2 sentences2011We are unpersuaded that we must consider the OAG’s arguments at the hearing as ―evidence.‖ In Mathis, the supreme court noted that although the defaulting party and plaintiff’s counsel were not under oath, ―the oath requirement was waived when neither 10 raised any objection in circumstances that clearly indicated each was tendering evidence on the record based on personal knowledge on the sole contested issue [whether the defaulting party received notice].‖ Mathis, 166 S.W.3d at 745 .7 We do not find that the OAG’s arguments at the motion for new trial hearing ―clearly indicated‖ that she was 2011We are unpersuaded that we must consider the OAG’s arguments at the hearing as ―evidence.‖ In Mathis, the supreme court noted that although the defaulting party and plaintiff’s counsel were not under oath, ―the oath requirement was waived when neither 10 raised any objection in circumstances that clearly indicated each was tendering evidence on the record based on personal knowledge on the sole contested issue [whether the defaulting party received notice].‖ Mathis, 166 S.W.3d at 745 .7 We do not find that the OAG’s arguments at the motion for new trial hearing ―clearly indicated‖ that she was | 1 | 2011–2011 |
City of Houston v. Clark
green
1 sentence2008City of Houston, 197 S.W.3d at 324 . [3] Therefore, our review must be confined to the City's arguments that challenge the hearing examiner's jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss at all (as contrasted from those that contend, in effect, that the hearing examiner ruled incorrectly that the acting fire chief lacked the necessary authority by misapplying applicable law). [4] The City first challenges the hearing examiner's jurisdiction to rule on Clark's motion to dismiss on the ground that Clark waived his objection to the acting fire chief's lack of authority to suspend him by failing | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Eaden v. State
green
1 sentence2005Sincerely, [FIRM NAME] [Attorney's name] NOTES [1] Eaden v. State, No. 11-03-00405-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 309558 (Tex.App.-Eastland Feb.10, 2005, no pet. h.). [1] A frivolous appeal has been defined as an appeal in which the result is obvious or the arguments of error are wholly without merit. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McConnell v. Southside Independent School District
green
1 sentence1993School Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.1993). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Weatherford v. State
green
1 sentence1992Weatherford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Cote
green
2 sentences1971In State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290 , 235 A.2d 111 (1967) the court overruled the defendant’s exceptions to the introduction into evidence of his prior convictions and quoted an earlier New Hampshire case, State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292 , 123 A.2d 745 , for the proposition that: ‘“We are aware of the arguments for a rule which would limit impeachment in such cases to crimes directly involving lack of veracity * * * [but] such a rule represents too narrow and artificial a view.’ ” In Duke, the New Hampshire Court said: “The object of a trial is not solely to surround an accused with legal safeguards bu 1971In State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290 , 235 A.2d 111 (1967) the court overruled the defendant’s exceptions to the introduction into evidence of his prior convictions and quoted an earlier New Hampshire case, State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292 , 123 A.2d 745 , for the proposition that: ‘“We are aware of the arguments for a rule which would limit impeachment in such cases to crimes directly involving lack of veracity * * * [but] such a rule represents too narrow and artificial a view.’ ” In Duke, the New Hampshire Court said: “The object of a trial is not solely to surround an accused with legal safeguards bu | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Duke
green
2 sentences1971In State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290 , 235 A.2d 111 (1967) the court overruled the defendant’s exceptions to the introduction into evidence of his prior convictions and quoted an earlier New Hampshire case, State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292 , 123 A.2d 745 , for the proposition that: ‘“We are aware of the arguments for a rule which would limit impeachment in such cases to crimes directly involving lack of veracity * * * [but] such a rule represents too narrow and artificial a view.’ ” In Duke, the New Hampshire Court said: “The object of a trial is not solely to surround an accused with legal safeguards bu 1971In State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290 , 235 A.2d 111 (1967) the court overruled the defendant’s exceptions to the introduction into evidence of his prior convictions and quoted an earlier New Hampshire case, State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292 , 123 A.2d 745 , for the proposition that: ‘“We are aware of the arguments for a rule which would limit impeachment in such cases to crimes directly involving lack of veracity * * * [but] such a rule represents too narrow and artificial a view.’ ” In Duke, the New Hampshire Court said: “The object of a trial is not solely to surround an accused with legal safeguards bu | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.