22 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2009–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 347 (Tex. Crim. 2024See Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 347 (Tex. Crim. | 8 | 8 |
Paredes v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Paredes v. State , 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. 2009Acevedo v. State, 255 S.W.3d 162, 173 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); see Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Grado, Michael Anthonygreen2 sentences2019In Marin, the Court of Criminal Appeals “held that the general preservation requirement’s application turns on the nature of the right allegedly infringed.” Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim. 2018The Court has "characterized Marin as holding 'that the general preservation requirement's application turns on the nature of the right allegedly infringed,' as opposed to 'the circumstances under which it was raised.' That is, a proper determination of a claim's availability on appeal should not involve peering behind the procedural-default curtain to look at *737 the particular 'circumstances' of the claim within the case at hand." Id. at 796, at *6 (first quoting Grado v. State , 445 S.W.3d 736 , 739 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Acevedo v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Acevedo v. State, 255 S.W.3d 162, 173 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); see Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. 2009Acevedo v. State , 255 S.W.3d 162, 173 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); see Paredes v. State , 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Marin v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 , 278–79 (Tex. Crim. 2019App. 2014); Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. 1 McPherson argues that no warnings were given to him in the civil proceedings with respect to the interrogatory answers on the subject of his right not to incriminate himself in his answer. | 1 | 3 |
Noland v. Stategreen1 sentence2026E.g., Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Wynn v. State, 219 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Wynn v. Stategreen1 sentence2026E.g., Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Wynn v. State, 219 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Aguilar v. Stategreen1 sentence2020In Lovill, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted that, under the general preservation rule, “[a] party’s complaint is regarded as timely when it was ‘made as soon as the ground for complaint is apparent or should be apparent.’” Id. at 692 (emphasis added) (quoting Aguilar v. State, 26 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2020App. 2000) (citing Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 146 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Lovill v. Stategreen1 sentence2020In Lovill, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted that, under the general preservation rule, “[a] party’s complaint is regarded as timely when it was ‘made as soon as the ground for complaint is apparent or should be apparent.’” Id. at 692 (emphasis added) (quoting Aguilar v. State, 26 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See id. | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Scott v. State, 555 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Mansions in the Forest, L.P. v. Montgomery Countygreen2 sentences2015Because promissory notes are governed by a unique set of rules, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court of Texas would 17 See Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–67. 18 See id. at 566–68. 19 See id. at 568 . 20 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 316–17; Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–68. 21 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 317 . 22 Id. 5 recognize an exception to the general preservation-of-error rule for promissory notes. 2015Because promissory notes are governed by a unique set of rules, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court of Texas would 17 See Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–67. 18 See id. at 566–68. 19 See id. at 568 . 20 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 316–17; Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–68. 21 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 317 . 22 Id. 5 recognize an exception to the general preservation-of-error rule for promissory notes. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See id. at 391 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saldano v. State
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Mendez v. State
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 341 . 2009Id. at 341 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Ricketts v. State
green
1 sentence2024Ricketts, 89 S.W.3d at 319 n. 1. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
EX PARTE Eric Michael HEILMAN, Appellee
green
1 sentence2018App. 2014), then quoting Ex parte Heilman , 456 S.W.3d 159 , 165-66 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Perkins v. Crittenden
green
2 sentences2015Because promissory notes are governed by a unique set of rules, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court of Texas would 17 See Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–67. 18 See id. at 566–68. 19 See id. at 568 . 20 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 316–17; Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–68. 21 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 317 . 22 Id. 5 recognize an exception to the general preservation-of-error rule for promissory notes. 2015Because promissory notes are governed by a unique set of rules, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court of Texas would 17 See Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–67. 18 See id. at 566–68. 19 See id. at 568 . 20 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 316–17; Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566–68. 21 See Mansions in the Forest, L.P., 365 S.W.3d at 317 . 22 Id. 5 recognize an exception to the general preservation-of-error rule for promissory notes. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Proctor v. State
green
1 sentence2015Proctor, 967 S.W.2d at 843 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.