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 1988–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The State relies heavily upon three cases where an intermediate appellate court has found that the questioning of a grand jury witness by an unauthorized person was harmless, State v. Smith, 36 S.W.3d 134, 137-38 (Tex.App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d); Sanders v. State, 978 S.W.2d 597, 600-01 (Tex.App.–Tyler 1997, pet. ref’d); and Hernandez v. State, 791 S.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d). 2009The State relies heavily upon three cases where an intermediate appellate court has found that the questioning of a grand jury witness by an unauthorized person was harmless, Smith v. State, 36 S.W.3d 134, 137-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd); Sanders v. State, 978 S.W.2d 597, 600-01 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, pet. ref'd); and Hernandez v. State, 791 S.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd). | 5 | 5 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The State relies heavily upon three cases where an intermediate appellate court has found that the questioning of a grand jury witness by an unauthorized person was harmless, State v. Smith, 36 S.W.3d 134, 137-38 (Tex.App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d); Sanders v. State, 978 S.W.2d 597, 600-01 (Tex.App.–Tyler 1997, pet. ref’d); and Hernandez v. State, 791 S.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d). 2009The State relies heavily upon three cases where an intermediate appellate court has found that the questioning of a grand jury witness by an unauthorized person was harmless, Smith v. State, 36 S.W.3d 134, 137-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd); Sanders v. State, 978 S.W.2d 597, 600-01 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, pet. ref'd); and Hernandez v. State, 791 S.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd). | 5 | 5 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The State relies heavily upon three cases where an intermediate appellate court has found that the questioning of a grand jury witness by an unauthorized person was harmless, State v. Smith, 36 S.W.3d 134, 137-38 (Tex.App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d); Sanders v. State, 978 S.W.2d 597, 600-01 (Tex.App.–Tyler 1997, pet. ref’d); and Hernandez v. State, 791 S.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d). 2009The State relies heavily upon three cases where an intermediate appellate court has found that the questioning of a grand jury witness by an unauthorized person was harmless, Smith v. State, 36 S.W.3d 134, 137-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd); Sanders v. State, 978 S.W.2d 597, 600-01 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, pet. ref'd); and Hernandez v. State, 791 S.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd). | 5 | 5 |
Lavarry v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The State asserts that the factors articulated in Lavarry v. State, 936 S.W.2d 690, 696 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, pet. ref’d), weigh in favor of the jury’s finding. 2015The State asserts that the factors articulated in Lavarry v. State, 936 S.W.2d 690, 696 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1996, pet. refd), weigh in favor of the jury’s finding. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2010State v. Boyd, 202 S.W.3d 393, 404 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd). 2010State v. Boyd, 202 S.W.3d 393, 404 (Tex. App.––Dallas 2006, pet. ref‘d). | 3 | 3 |
Kitchens v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). 2005See Kitchens v. State , 823 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
R.A.G. v. Stategreen1 sentence2014However, the State asserts that error, if any, should be reviewed for harmlessness, citing R.A.G. v. State, 870 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, writ granted), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2014“After finding error in the court’s charges, we must next consider whether Appellant was harmed by the error.” Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gorham v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Gorham v. State, 981 S.W.2d 315, 317-19 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). 2006See Gorham v. State, 981 S.W.2d 315, 317-19 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Carroll, 990 S.W.2d at 763 (assuming the constitutional error analysis applied to a rule 21.3(f) error). 2002See Carroll, 990 S.W.2d at 763 (assuming the constitutional error analysis applied to a rule 21.3(f) error). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Bravogreen1 sentence1988See Ex parte Bravo, supra, at 191. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mohammed v. State
green
2 sentences2010PENAL CODE ANN . § 19.02(b)(3); Mohammed, 127 S.W.3d at 167 . 2010The State asserts that an instruction on the lesser-included offense of felony murder is not proper unless there is some evidence at trial that the defendant committed a felony and, "in the course of and in furtherance" of the crime, "commit[ted] an act clearly dangerous to human life that cause[d] the death of an individual." See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02 (b)(3); Mohammed , 127 S.W.3d at 167 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Miller
green
2 sentences2006The State relies on State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693 (Tex.2001) as authority for its argument. 2006The State relies on State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Miller , 52 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. 2001) as authority for its argument. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Matter of RAG
green
1 sentence2014In the Matter of R.A.G., 866 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.1993). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.