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 3 courts 1952–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vasquez v. Stategreen2 sentences2008In Vasquez v. State, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated, “[w]e have interpreted articles 36.14 and 36.15 as dealing with those two distinct situations: an objection to the charge and a requested special instruction, respectively.” Id. at 435 (citing Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)). 2008In Vasquez v. State, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated, “[w]e have interpreted articles 36.14 and 36.15 as dealing with those two distinct situations: an objection to the charge and a requested special instruction, respectively.” Id. at 435 (citing Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)). | 4 | 11 |
Frank v. Stategreen2 sentences2008In Vasquez v. State, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated, “[w]e have interpreted articles 36.14 and 36.15 as dealing with those two distinct situations: an objection to the charge and a requested special instruction, respectively.” Id. at 435 (citing Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)). 2008App. 1996), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated, "[w]e have interpreted articles 36.14 and 36.15 as dealing with those two distinct situations: an objection to the charge and a requested special instruction, respectively." Id. at 435 (citing Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 13 |
Starks v. Stategreen1 sentence2012App. 1996) (“We have interpreted articles 36.14 and 36.15 as dealing with those two distinct situations: an objection to the charge and a requested special instruction, respectively.”); Starks v. State, 127 S.W.3d 127, 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (“In order to preserve error relating to a jury charge, there must either be an objection or a requested charge.”). | 1 | 1 |
Loving v. Meachamgreen1 sentence1989This instruction read: “A blind pedestrian is not accorded any greater rights or privileges than are accorded normal pedestrians in regard to walking upon public streets and highways.” Caskey cites Loving v. Meacham, 278 S.W.2d 466, 470 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1955) as authority for this proposition. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chrysler Corp. v. McMorries
green
1 sentence1993Chrysler Corp. v. McMorries, 657 S.W.2d at 862 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Jordan
green
1 sentence1974Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Jordan, 351 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1961, n. w. h.). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Whitcomb
green
2 sentences1952It is to be noted that the testimony that was admissible only by way of impeachment was as to a statement made by the driver of the defendant’s ambulance, which amounted in effect to an admission of negligence charged as a ground of liability. 3 We believe that the rule announced in Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Whitcomb, 139 Texas 467 , 163 S. W. 2d 616 , should be applied in answering the question here presented, although the evidence to which the requested special instruction was directed in that case was not evidence admitted for a limited purpose, but had been admitted and then withdra 1952It is to be noted that the testimony that was admissible only by way of impeachment was as to a statement made by the driver of the defendant’s ambulance, which amounted in effect to an admission of negligence charged as a ground of liability. 3 We believe that the rule announced in Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Whitcomb, 139 Texas 467 , 163 S. W. 2d 616 , should be applied in answering the question here presented, although the evidence to which the requested special instruction was directed in that case was not evidence admitted for a limited purpose, but had been admitted and then withdra | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.