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.
140 Texas opinions name it 6 courts 1970–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2026The State argues that Contreras’s trial counsel was not ineffective because not requesting the lesser included charge may have been reasonable trial strategy. -5- 04-24-00784-CR A. Applicable Law In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), the Supreme Court set the two- pronged test for determining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) whether counsel was deficient, and (2) whether the defendant suffered prejudice because of counsel’s error. 2022Appellant has not argued that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor does he cite the two- pronged test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). | 14 | 49 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2015To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must meet the two- pronged test set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted by the Texas ‐4‐ Court of Criminal Appeals in Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. 2015We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the two- pronged test articulated in Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 , 47 687 (1984); see Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. | 13 | 19 |
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“We review claims of jury charge error under the two pronged test set out in Almanza v. State . . . .” Gomez v. State, 459 S.W.3d 651, 660 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015, pet. ref’d) (citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (op. on reh’g); Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 524 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d); Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d)). 2022Standard of Review We review claims of jury charge error under the two pronged test set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Rousseau v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Rousseau v. State , 855 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Tex. Crim. 2005Rousseau v. State , 855 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Lindsey v. Lindseygreen2 sentences2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally "engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589 , 592 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; accord Roberts , 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears , 423 S.W.3d 493 , 499 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.) ; Iliff v. Iliff , 339 S.W.3d 126 , 134 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009), aff'd, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ; Swaab v. Swaab , 282 S.W.3d 519 , 525 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally “engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.); accord Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009), aff’d, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011); Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2 | 3 | 8 |
Bill Boyd Kuhn v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“We review claims of jury charge error under the two pronged test set out in Almanza v. State . . . .” Gomez v. State, 459 S.W.3d 651, 660 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015, pet. ref’d) (citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (op. on reh’g); Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 524 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d); Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d)). 2015Standard of Review We review claims of jury charge error under the two pronged test set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g); see Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 524 (Tex.App.-Austin 2013, pet. ref'd); Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 3 |
Swearingen v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“We review claims of jury charge error under the two pronged test set out in Almanza v. State . . . .” Gomez v. State, 459 S.W.3d 651, 660 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015, pet. ref’d) (citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (op. on reh’g); Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 524 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d); Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d)). 2015Standard of Review We review claims of jury charge error under the two pronged test set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g); see Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 524 (Tex.App.-Austin 2013, pet. ref'd); Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 3 |
Castleberry v. Branscumred2 sentences2005Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270, 276-77 (Tex.1986). 2005Castleberry v. Branscum , 721 S.W.2d 270, 276-77 (Tex. 1986). | 3 | 3 |
Zeifman v. Michelsgreen2 sentences2022This motion, which has been carried with the case, is rendered moot by our decision on the merits of the petition. 6 which to exercise its discretion; and, if so, (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of discretion based on that information.” Id. (citing Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582 , 587–88 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied)). 2021Id.; Zeifman, 212 S.W.3d at 588 . | 2 | 7 |
Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also Lopez, 343 S.W.3d at 142 ; and Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 55 (Tex. Crim. 2012APPLICABLE LAW “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must meet the two- pronged test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland, and adopted by Texas two years later in Hernandez.” Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Roberts v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally "engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589 , 592 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; accord Roberts , 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears , 423 S.W.3d 493 , 499 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.) ; Iliff v. Iliff , 339 S.W.3d 126 , 134 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009), aff'd, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ; Swaab v. Swaab , 282 S.W.3d 519 , 525 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally “engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.); accord Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009), aff’d, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011); Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2 | 2 | 2 |
Judith Karen Beshears v. Donald Beshearsgreen2 sentences2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally "engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589 , 592 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; accord Roberts , 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears , 423 S.W.3d 493 , 499 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.) ; Iliff v. Iliff , 339 S.W.3d 126 , 134 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009), aff'd, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ; Swaab v. Swaab , 282 S.W.3d 519 , 525 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally “engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.); accord Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009), aff’d, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011); Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2 | 2 | 2 |
In Re MACgreen2 sentences2013See In the Matter of M.A.C., 999 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, no pet.). 2005In re M.A.C ., 999 S.W.2d 442,446 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, no pet). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Watsongreen2 sentences2012See Ex parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 259, 272-73 (Tex. Crim. 2012See Ex parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 259, 272-73 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Hampton v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Hampton v. State , 109 S.W.3d 437, 440 (Tex. Crim. 2004Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 440 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Wesbrook v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 113 (Tex. Crim. 2004Wesbrook v. State , 29 S.W.3d 103, 113 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Sandone v. Miller-Sandonegreen2 sentences2011Sandone v. Miller-Sandone, 116 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2003, no pet.). 2008Sandone, 116 S.W.3d at 206 . | 1 | 3 |
Swaab v. Swaabgreen2 sentences2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally "engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589 , 592 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; accord Roberts , 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears , 423 S.W.3d 493 , 499 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.) ; Iliff v. Iliff , 339 S.W.3d 126 , 134 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009), aff'd, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ; Swaab v. Swaab , 282 S.W.3d 519 , 525 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally “engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.); accord Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009), aff’d, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011); Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2 | 1 | 2 |
Iliff v. Iliffgreen2 sentences2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally "engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589 , 592 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; accord Roberts , 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears , 423 S.W.3d 493 , 499 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.) ; Iliff v. Iliff , 339 S.W.3d 126 , 134 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009), aff'd, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ; Swaab v. Swaab , 282 S.W.3d 519 , 525 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally “engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.); accord Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009), aff’d, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011); Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2 | 1 | 2 |
Boyd v. Boydgreen2 sentences2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally "engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589 , 592 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; accord Roberts , 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears , 423 S.W.3d 493 , 499 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.) ; Iliff v. Iliff , 339 S.W.3d 126 , 134 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009), aff'd, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ; Swaab v. Swaab , 282 S.W.3d 519 , 525 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally “engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.); accord Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009), aff’d, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011); Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2 | 1 | 2 |
Coates v. Whittingtongreen2 sentences2016“Rule 204.1, by its express language, places an affirmative burden on the movant to meet a two pronged test: (1) the movant must show that the party’s condition is ‘in controversy*; and (2) the movant must demonstrate that there is ‘good cause’ for such an examination.” Id.; see also Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Tex.1988) (orig.proceeding) (identifying same test with respect to mental examinations under predecessor rule to 204.1), “A plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or physical injury ... places that mental or physical injury in controversy and provides the de 1990In the absence of an affirmative showing of both prongs of the test, a trial court may not order an examination pursuant to Rule 167a. 758 S.W.2d at 751 . | 1 | 2 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences1987I also dissent to the majority opinion because I believe that the two pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), which this Court has in the past religiously adhered to, should not be abandoned in favor of the "totality of the circumstances" test pronounced in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). 1987I also dissent to the majority opinion because I believe that the two pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), which this Court has in the past religiously adhered to, should not be abandoned in favor of the "totality of the circumstances" test pronounced in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
| Moore v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ngo v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Villa v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cesar Gomez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vardilos v. Vardilosgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Echols v. Olivarezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kirk Brand Coburn v. Janet Morelandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Louis C. Ostrergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Interest of J.J.G.green | 1 | 1 |
| Monroe v. Monroegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schlagenhauf v. Holdergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gulf Land Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wright Way Construction Co. v. Harlingen Mall Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| in Re State of Texas Ex Rel, Tharp, Jennifergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frommer v. Frommergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aguilar v. Texas
red
2 sentences1994This case effectively overrules the more stringent two pronged test set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). 1994This case effectively overrules the more stringent two pronged test set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). | 7 | 1971–1994 |
Garza v. Garza
green
2 sentences2017Therefore, upon review of the trial court’s division of property, we engage in a two pronged inquiry: “(1) did the trial court have sufficient evidence upon which to exercise its discretion, and (2) did the trial court err in its application of that discretion?” Monroe v. Monroe, 358 S.W.3d 711, 719 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (quoting Garza, 217 S.W.3d at 549 ); Palaez v. Juarez, 04-14-00022-CV, 2014 WL 7183483 , at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Dec. 17, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.). 2011To aid in our decision, we engage in a two pronged inquiry: "(1) did the trial court have sufficient evidence upon which to exercise its discretion, and (2) did the trial court err in its application of that discretion?" Garza v. Garza, 217 S.W.3d at 549 . | 5 | 2008–2017 |
Hall v. State
green
2 sentences2018Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 , 535–36 (Tex. Crim. 2017Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 , 535–36 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 2017–2018 |
State Ex Rel. Young v. SIXTH JUD. DISTRICT
green
2 sentences2011As we pointed out in Young, “we determine whether the court of appeals abused its discretion essentially by undertaking a ‘de novo application of the two pronged test’ ” for mandamus relief. 236 S.W.3d at 210-11 (citing George E. 2011As we pointed out in Young, “we determine whether the court of appeals abused its discretion essentially by undertaking a ‘de novo application of the two pronged test’” for mandamus relief. 236 S.W.3d at 210-11 (citing George E. | 3 | 2011–2011 |
Moroch v. Collins
green
2 sentences2010Garza, 217 S.W.3d at 549 ; Moroch, 174 S.W.3d at 857 . 2008Garza, 217 S.W.3d at 549 ; Moroch, 174 S.W.3d at 857 . | 3 | 2008–2010 |
Giffin v. Smith
green
2 sentences2025Giffin, 688 S.W.2d 112 . 30 information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, and tangible things APPELLANT’S AMENDED BRIEF Page 58 of 77 Appellees’ motion for protective order does not even pretend to meet the two- pronged test and only relies on the first prong, to wit, an investigation by the nonparty law enforcement agency that does not result in conviction or deferred adjudication. 2025Giffin, 688 S.W.2d 112 . 32 information, records, documents, evidentiary materials, and tangible things APPELLANT’S AMENDED BRIEF Page 58 of 77 Appellees’ motion for protective order does not even pretend to meet the two- pronged test and only relies on the first prong, to wit, an investigation by the nonparty law enforcement agency that does not result in conviction or deferred adjudication. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In re Rogers
green
2 sentences2022This motion, which has been carried with the case, is rendered moot by our decision on the merits of the petition. 6 which to exercise its discretion; and, if so, (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of discretion based on that information.” Id. (citing Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582 , 587–88 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied)). 2015In factoring legal- and factual-sufficiency considerations into the abuse-of-discretion analysis, appellate courts “must engage in a two- pronged inquiry, asking (1) whether the trial court had sufficient information on which to exercise its discretion; and, if so, (2) whether the 14 trial court erred in its application of discretion based on that information.” Rogers, 370 S.W.3d at 445 . | 2 | 2015–2022 |
Iliff v. Iliff
green
2 sentences2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally "engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589 , 592 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; accord Roberts , 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears , 423 S.W.3d 493 , 499 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.) ; Iliff v. Iliff , 339 S.W.3d 126 , 134 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009), aff'd, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ; Swaab v. Swaab , 282 S.W.3d 519 , 525 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 2018Because of this, our courts of appeals have generally “engage[d] in a two pronged inquiry: (1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) Did the trial court err in its application of discretion?” Lindsey v. Lindsey, 965 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.); accord Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 231 , Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 134 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009), aff’d, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011); Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Rugendorf v. United States green | 2 | 1970–1971 |
| Jones v. United States red | 2 | 1970–1971 |
| Kothe v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Terry v. Ohio green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In Re AD green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re JM green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Watson v. Watson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| BP America Production Co. v. Laddex, Ltd. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re MS green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Padieu, Philippe, Relator v. Court of Appeals of Texas, 5th District green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re MRJM green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Goodspeed v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Tarrant County v. Chancey green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Home Owners Funding Corp. of America v. Scheppler green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| New Jersey v. T. L. O. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Valencia v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.