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.
23 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Watson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Grotti v. State, 273 S.W.3d 273, 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008); Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). 2011Grotti v. State, 273 S.W.3d 273, 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008); Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). | 23 | 23 |
Grotti v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Grotti v. State, 273 S.W.3d 273, 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008); Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). 2011Grotti v. State, 273 S.W.3d 273, 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008); Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). | 19 | 19 |
Riddle v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Riddle v. State, 888 S.W.2d 1, 7-8 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1994) . [3] The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury’s verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdict is such that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. 2010See Riddle v. State, 888 S.W.2d 1, 7-8 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1994) . [3] The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury’s verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdict is such that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pearson v. State
green
2 sentences2011Although we are not bound by a decision of four judges, Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176 , 177 n.3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), we read the combined opinions of Judges Hervey and Cochran in Brooks as abandoning factual sufficiency as an evidentiary sufficiency standard of review distinct from legal sufficiency. 17 The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury's verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdict is such that the jury's verdict is against the gr 2011Although we are not bound by a decision of four judges, Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176 , 177 n.3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), we read the combined opinions of Judges Hervey and Cochran in Brooks as abandoning factual sufficiency as an evidentiary sufficiency standard of review distinct from legal sufficiency. [17]The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury's verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdict is such that the jury's verdict is against the g | 4 | 2003–2011 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2011Campbell Justice Do not publish. [1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (a )( 1) (West 2003). [2] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct . 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [3] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 (a )( 42) (West 2003) (reasonable belief A means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor @ ). [4] The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury's verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdic 2011Campbell Justice Do not publish. [1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (a )( 1) (West 2003). [2] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct . 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [3] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 (a )( 42) (West 2003) (reasonable belief A means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor @ ). [4] The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury's verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdic | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Clewis v. State
red
2 sentences2010Oct. 6, 2010), the Court of Criminal Appeals abandoned factual sufficiency analysis under Clewis v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1996), and held that the only standard to be applied when determining the sufficiency of evidence to support an element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that established by Jackson v. Virginia. [8] The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury = s verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, 2002Oct. 6, 2010), the Court of Criminal Appeals abandoned factual sufficiency analysis under Clewis v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1996), and held that the only standard to be applied when determining the sufficiency of evidence to support an element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that established by Jackson v. Virginia. [8] The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury = s verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, | 2 | 2002–2010 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2011We will review appellant's claims of evidentiary sufficiency under the standard of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia.5 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 5 The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury’s verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdict is such that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. 2011We will review appellant's claims of evidentiary sufficiency under the standard of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia.5 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 5 The previously-applied factual sufficiency standard considers whether the evidence supporting guilt, though legally sufficient, is so weak that the jury’s verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or evidence contrary to the verdict is such that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.