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.
22 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Archie v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Archie, 221 S.W.3d at 700 . 2009See Archie , 221 S.W.3d at 700 . | 2 | 2 |
Matter of TRSgreen2 sentences2000See T.R.S., 931 S.W.2d at 758 ; Holland, 901 S.W.2d at 765 . 2000See T.R.S., 931 S.W.2d at 758 ; Holland, 901 S.W.2d at 765 . | 2 | 2 |
Harris County v. Sykesgreen1 sentence2025CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s order granting Mitchell’s plea to the jurisdiction. /s/ Scott A. Brister Scott A. Brister Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris. 36 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Self, 690 S.W.3d 12 , 20–21 (Tex. 2024). 37 See id. at 21 (quoting Dallas Metrocare Servs. v. Juarez, 420 S.W.3d 39, 41 (Tex. 2013)). 38 See, e.g., Herrera, 702 S.W.3d at 541; Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004) (“In general, a dismissal with prejudice is improper when the plaintiff is capable of remedying the jurisdictional defect.”). 8 | 1 | 1 |
Dallas Metrocare Services v. Adolfo Juarezgreen1 sentence2025CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s order granting Mitchell’s plea to the jurisdiction. /s/ Scott A. Brister Scott A. Brister Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris. 36 Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Self, 690 S.W.3d 12 , 20–21 (Tex. 2024). 37 See id. at 21 (quoting Dallas Metrocare Servs. v. Juarez, 420 S.W.3d 39, 41 (Tex. 2013)). 38 See, e.g., Herrera, 702 S.W.3d at 541; Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004) (“In general, a dismissal with prejudice is improper when the plaintiff is capable of remedying the jurisdictional defect.”). 8 | 1 | 1 |
Merritt, Ryan Rashadgreen1 sentence2024See Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 525 (“It is the State’s burden to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, not to exclude every conceivable alternative to a defendant’s guilt.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.green1 sentence2022Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 6 CONCLUSION Having determined that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion for new trial after its plenary power had expired and CommunityBank need not show that it does not have an adequate remedy by appeal, we conditionally grant CommunityBank’s petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its March 22, 2022 order granting Mitchell’s motion for new trial. | 1 | 1 |
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp.green2 sentences2022However, as we discuss more fully below, Mitchell’s analysis is inapplicable to the facts of this case as a result of evidentiary deficiencies at the summary judgment stage. 5 conclusively prove when the cause of action accrued, and (2) negate the discovery rule, if it applies and has been pled or otherwise raised[.]” Holland, 338 S.W.3d at 593 (citing KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999)). 2022However, as we discuss more fully below, Mitchell’s analysis is inapplicable to the facts of this case as a result of evidentiary deficiencies at the summary judgment stage. 5 conclusively prove when the cause of action accrued, and (2) negate the discovery rule, if it applies and has been pled or otherwise raised[.]” Holland, 338 S.W.3d at 593 (citing KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“When we identify issues that counsel on appeal should have addressed but did not, we need not be able to say with certainty that those issues have merit; we need only say that the issues warrant further development by counsel on appeal.” Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 200 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, order). | 1 | 1 |
Certified Ems, Inc. D/B/A Cpns Staffing v. Cherie Pottsgreen1 sentence2019See Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625 , 630–32 (Tex. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Yuhl v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Yuhl v. State, 784 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
RTLC AG PRODUCTS, INC. v. Treatment Equipment Co.green1 sentence2010See RTLC AG Prods., Inc., 195 S.W.3d at 829 . | 1 | 1 |
Arkoma Basin Exploration Co. v. FMF Associates 1990-A, Ltd.green1 sentence2010Cf. Arkoma Basin Exploration Co., Inc., 249 S.W.3d at 389 (concluding expert’s testimony regarding his calculations was not unreliable). | 1 | 1 |
Trusty v. Strayhorngreen1 sentence2010See Trusty, 87 S.W.3d at 761 ; Mitchell v. Baylor Univ. | 1 | 1 |
Oldham v. Stategreen1 sentence2010We have been able to identify four discrete arguments and so we address those arguments. [11] Mitchell also denied resisting arrest. [12] We further note that Mrs. Mitchell admitted to “yelling and cussing”, thus negating any dispute as to its occurrence. [13] See Oldham v. State , 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
City of Tyler v. Likesgreen1 sentence2009See Likes, 962 S.W.2d at 494 ; see also Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Ovalle v. Stategreen1 sentence2006"Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer, even one regarding extraneous offenses." Ovalle v. State , 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 | 1 | 1 |
Jolly v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 | 1 | 1 |
Franklin v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 | 1 | 1 |
Everitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 | 1 | 1 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 2006The Mitchell standard reads much like the constitutionally mandated Jackson standard of review. [57] Smith v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. 355, 357 , 212 S.W. 660, 661 (1919) (evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction). [58] Jolly v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. 288, 293 , 221 S.W. 279, 282 (1920). [59] Franklin v. State, 147 Tex.Crim. 636, 638 , 183 S.W.2d 573, 574 (1944) (citations omitted). [60] Everitt v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 332, 335 , 242 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1951) (op. on reh'g). [61] Hall v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 243, 246 , 254 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1953) (op. on reh'g). [62 | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See id. at 884-85 (holding State’s comment as proper summation of evidence where it specifically pointed out lack of testimony from other witnesses concerning any motive for female witnesses to falsely accuse appellant of sexual assault). | 1 | 1 |
Fogle v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Therefore, the prosecutor’s statement was not a comment on Mitchell’s failure to testify, and the trial court did not err by overruling Mitchell’s objection. (footnote: 3) See Fogle , 988 S.W.2d at 894 (holding prosecutor’s statement was not a comment on appellant’s failure to testify where it merely pointed out that there was lack of other extrinsic evidence establishing appellant’s disorder). | 1 | 1 |
| Reyes v. Statered | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holland v. Hayden
green
2 sentences2000See T.R.S., 931 S.W.2d at 758 ; Holland, 901 S.W.2d at 765 . 2000See T.R.S., 931 S.W.2d at 758 ; Holland, 901 S.W.2d at 765 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Holland v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2022However, as we discuss more fully below, Mitchell’s analysis is inapplicable to the facts of this case as a result of evidentiary deficiencies at the summary judgment stage. 5 conclusively prove when the cause of action accrued, and (2) negate the discovery rule, if it applies and has been pled or otherwise raised[.]” Holland, 338 S.W.3d at 593 (citing KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999)). 2022However, as we discuss more fully below, Mitchell’s analysis is inapplicable to the facts of this case as a result of evidentiary deficiencies at the summary judgment stage. 5 conclusively prove when the cause of action accrued, and (2) negate the discovery rule, if it applies and has been pled or otherwise raised[.]” Holland, 338 S.W.3d at 593 (citing KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gibson v. State
green
1 sentence2016The State gave the race-neutral explanation that an element of Venireperson A’s physical appearance made the State suspect that she could be a user of illegal drugs. 7 “In the typical 6 Here, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the intermediate court “misapplied this ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of appellate review when it substituted its judgment for the trial court’s in deciding that the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral explanation for striking veniremember 11 was a pretext.” Gibson, 144 S.W.3d at 534 . 7 In Gambel v. State, 835 S.W.2d 788 , 790–91 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gambel v. State
green
1 sentence2016The State gave the race-neutral explanation that an element of Venireperson A’s physical appearance made the State suspect that she could be a user of illegal drugs. 7 “In the typical 6 Here, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the intermediate court “misapplied this ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of appellate review when it substituted its judgment for the trial court’s in deciding that the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral explanation for striking veniremember 11 was a pretext.” Gibson, 144 S.W.3d at 534 . 7 In Gambel v. State, 835 S.W.2d 788 , 790–91 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Ramirez
green
1 sentence2008Under the circumstances alleged by Mitchell, Respondent has had a reasonable time to rule on Mitchell’s motion for default judgment. [1] See id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Martinez v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Ewing v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Morford v. Bellanca Aircraft Corp. green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Holland v. Nance neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Broom v. Pearson green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Watkins Land Co. v. Clements green | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Hill v. Harris neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.