22 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blake v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Accordingly, the trial court properly denied James' request for court-appointed counsel because his application fails to show there is any reasonable ground for the application."); Blake v. State , 208 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, no pet.) ("the trial court had evidence that no biological material still existed that could be submitted for DNA testing. 2011Accordingly, the trial court properly denied James' request for court-appointed counsel because his application fails to show there is any reasonable ground for the application.”); Blake v. State, 208 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.) ("the trial court had evidence that no biological material still existed that could be submitted for DNA testing. | 3 | 3 |
Newton v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See id. 2004See id. | 2 | 2 |
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapmangreen2 sentences2009King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman , 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003); DR Partners v. Floyd , 228 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2007, pet. denied). 2009King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003); DR Partners v. Floyd, 228 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Davis v. State, 141 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, pet. refd). 2006See, e.g. , Davis v. State , 141 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Perry v. Cohengreen2 sentences2024See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008) (“Appellate briefs are to be construed reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appellate review is not lost by waiver.”). -2- 04-23-00142-CV party will not be allowed to complain on appeal of an action or ruling which she invited or induced.” Id. 2024See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008) (“Appellate briefs are to be construed reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appellate review is not lost by waiver.”). -2- 04-23-00142-CV party will not be allowed to complain on appeal of an action or ruling which she invited or induced.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Amanda Bradshaw v. Barney Samuel Bradshawgreen1 sentence2022See Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778, 778-79 (Tex. 1987) (addressing a motion for new trial); Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Tex. 2018) (addressing property division). | 1 | 1 |
Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. v. Baptist Foundation of Texasgreen1 sentence2022See Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. v. Baptist Found. of Tex., 166 S.W.3d 443, 448 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied). 8 Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’ motion for continuance, we overrule his first point. | 1 | 1 |
Cliff v. Hugginsgreen1 sentence2022See Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778, 778-79 (Tex. 1987) (addressing a motion for new trial); Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Tex. 2018) (addressing property division). | 1 | 1 |
Certified Ems, Inc. D/B/A Cpns Staffing v. Cherie Pottsgreen1 sentence2021See Potts, 392 S.W.3d at 632 ; Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671–72; Owens, 478 S.W.3d at 191–92; see also George, 261 S.W.3d at 295 (“[I]f the expert report is sufficient as to the claims against Dr. Ward, and we have held that it is[,] . . . then the report is sufficient as to [the] claims against CND that are based on Dr. Ward’s alleged negligence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Center for Neurological Disorders, P.A. v. Georgegreen1 sentence2021See Potts, 392 S.W.3d at 632 ; Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671–72; Owens, 478 S.W.3d at 191–92; see also George, 261 S.W.3d at 295 (“[I]f the expert report is sufficient as to the claims against Dr. Ward, and we have held that it is[,] . . . then the report is sufficient as to [the] claims against CND that are based on Dr. Ward’s alleged negligence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2015Standard of Review and Applicable Law We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Standard of Review and Applicable Law We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
Elliott-Williams Co., Inc. v. Diazgreen1 sentence2012See Elliott-Williams Co., 9 S.W.3d at 803 ; Boys Clubs of Greater Dall., Inc., 907 S.W.2d at 476–77. | 1 | 1 |
Leithold v. Plassgreen1 sentence2011The terms of that order were restated in the Amended Order signed March 5, 2010. 9 Eliason v. Eliason, 162 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2005, no pet.) (quoting Liehold v. Plass, 413 S.W.2d 698, 701 (Tex. 1967)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re JJCgreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (insufficient to refer to only ―both grounds for termination‖); In re J.S., 291 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsection (O) of Section 161.001(1)); In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D) and (E)); In re A.J.H., 205 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D), (E), and (N)). 2 There is a limited exception to Section 263.405(i). | 1 | 1 |
Ellason v. Ellasongreen1 sentence2011The terms of that order were restated in the Amended Order signed March 5, 2010. 9 Eliason v. Eliason, 162 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2005, no pet.) (quoting Liehold v. Plass, 413 S.W.2d 698, 701 (Tex. 1967)). | 1 | 1 |
Bessey v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Therefore, his complaint about the voluntariness of his plea is governed by the amended statute, current article 26.13(h).2 1 Although James did not timely object to the trial court’s failure to properly admonish him, the court of criminal appeals has held that an appellant is entitled to assert this challenge for the first time on appeal, “despite not having made the claim in the trial court.” Bessey v. State, 239 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
James v. Hauptgreen2 sentences2008See id. 2008See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Cummins v. Paisan Construction Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DR Partners v. Floyd
green
2 sentences2009King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman , 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003); DR Partners v. Floyd , 228 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2007, pet. denied). 2009King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003); DR Partners v. Floyd, 228 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. denied). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Bennett v. Cochran
green
1 sentence2024App. P. 34.6; Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227 , 228–29 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
PV International Corp. v. Turner
green
1 sentence2022In LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, the Texas Supreme Court held that when a party’s attorney appears at trial in the party’s absence, the trial court has conducted a trial on the merits. 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989) Here, as in LeBlanc, there was no default and no basis for applying a default judgment standard to James’ motion for new trial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Although James’ motion for new trial addresses the reason for his absence from trial and his purported meritorious defense to Margie’s claims, we find that the Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. standard does not apply to this case because the trial court did not enter a default judgment against James. 3 133 S.W.2d 124 , 126 3 In Craddock, our Supreme Court articulated the standard for setting aside a no-answer default judgment. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021See Potts, 392 S.W.3d at 632 ; Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671–72; Owens, 478 S.W.3d at 191–92; see also George, 261 S.W.3d at 295 (“[I]f the expert report is sufficient as to the claims against Dr. Ward, and we have held that it is[,] . . . then the report is sufficient as to [the] claims against CND that are based on Dr. Ward’s alleged negligence.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Owens v. Handyside
green
1 sentence2021See Potts, 392 S.W.3d at 632 ; Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671–72; Owens, 478 S.W.3d at 191–92; see also George, 261 S.W.3d at 295 (“[I]f the expert report is sufficient as to the claims against Dr. Ward, and we have held that it is[,] . . . then the report is sufficient as to [the] claims against CND that are based on Dr. Ward’s alleged negligence.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Donald James and David Anthony Butler, United States of America v. Henry Smith and Kenneth Wayne Whitmore
green
1 sentence2015Rule nal conviction that stemmed from his part 801(d)(2)(E). in marijuana importation scheme during 590 F.2d at 582 . which vessels were seized, giving rise to [16] After trial, the district court ruled forfeiture action, and (2) in absence of any that only certain statements by Punch exercise by claimant of right to come for- about Caceres were even entitled to a ward and show that facts constituting prob- James hearing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012See Elliott-Williams Co., 9 S.W.3d at 803 ; Boys Clubs of Greater Dall., Inc., 907 S.W.2d at 476–77. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re SB
green
1 sentence2011See, e.g., In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (insufficient to refer to only ―both grounds for termination‖); In re J.S., 291 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsection (O) of Section 161.001(1)); In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D) and (E)); In re A.J.H., 205 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D), (E), and (N)). 2 There is a limited exception to Section 263.405(i). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re AJH
green
1 sentence2011See, e.g., In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (insufficient to refer to only ―both grounds for termination‖); In re J.S., 291 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsection (O) of Section 161.001(1)); In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D) and (E)); In re A.J.H., 205 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D), (E), and (N)). 2 There is a limited exception to Section 263.405(i). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re JS
green
1 sentence2011See, e.g., In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (insufficient to refer to only ―both grounds for termination‖); In re J.S., 291 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsection (O) of Section 161.001(1)); In re S.B., 207 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D) and (E)); In re A.J.H., 205 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (sufficient to refer to subsections (D), (E), and (N)). 2 There is a limited exception to Section 263.405(i). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| In Re Estate of Crenshaw green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.