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 1942–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estelle v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2023The cases show, for example, that it is not an uncommon defense tactic to produce the defendant in jail clothes in the hope of eliciting sympathy from the jury.” Estelle, 425 U.S. at 507–08 (citations omitted). –7– constitutional ruling because constitutional error is subject to a much stricter harm analysis on appeal”). 2015Cf. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 508 (1976) (“[I]t is not an uncommon defense 1 While we question the need for such a “policy,” the trial court must be mindful of its obligations to ensure that the shackles are not visible to the jury. 7 tactic to produce the defendant in jail clothes in the hope of eliciting sympathy from the jury.”). | 8 | 9 |
Estate of Martha Jane Valdezgreen2 sentences2015Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-08-00887-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4376 , at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, no pet.) (citing King v. Acker, supra). • 4th Court of Appeals—San Antonio In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (stating “[a]lthough an uncommon claim, Texas law recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 7th Court of Appeals—Amarillo Nordyke v. Nordyke, No. 07-96-00406-CV, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 55 , at *10-11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 7, 1998, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing 2015Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-08-00887-CV, 2010 WL6 2306418, at *5-6, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4376 at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, no pet.) (citing King v. Acker, supra). • 4th Court of Appeals—San Antonio In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (stating “[although an uncommon claim, Texas law recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 7th Court of Appeals—Amarillo Nordyke v. Nordyke, No. 07-96-00406-CV, 1998 WL 4508 , at *4, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 55 , at *10-11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Estate of Crawfordgreen2 sentences2015Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-08-00887-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4376 , at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, no pet.) (citing King v. Acker, supra). • 4th Court of Appeals—San Antonio In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (stating “[a]lthough an uncommon claim, Texas law recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 7th Court of Appeals—Amarillo Nordyke v. Nordyke, No. 07-96-00406-CV, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 55 , at *10-11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 7, 1998, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing 2015In re Estate of Crawford, 795 S.W.2d 835, 841 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1990, no writ) (referring to tortious interference with inheritance rights as a “theory of recovery”). | 2 | 2 |
Brandes v. Rice Trust, Inc.green2 sentences2015Urbanczyk v. Urbanczyk, 278 S.W.3d 829, 835 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (holding that a claim of tortious interference with inheritance rights was properly resolved against a will contestant because there was no evidence of damages). • 8th Court of Appeals—El Paso In re Estate of Russell, 311 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.) (stating “Texas recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 10th Court of Appeals—Waco Haisler v. Coburn, No. 10-09-00275-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6050 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Waco July 28, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. 2013See King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (citing Pope v. Garrett, 204 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [Galveston] 1947) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on other grounds, 147 Tex. 18 , 211 S.W.2d 559 (1948)); Brandes, 966 S.W.2d at 146 (stating that King v. Acker is the only reported Texas case to that date involving tortious interference with inheritance rights). | 2 | 2 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2025Indeed, “[d]elay is not an uncommon defense tactic” and “may work to the accused’s advantage.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 521 . 2024Indeed, “[d]elay is not an uncommon defense tactic” and “may work to the accused’s advantage.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 521 . 9 At the hearing below, Appellant called his private investigator who identified two witnesses that the investigator was not able to locate, and one who had died by the time the investigator located him. | 1 | 8 |
King v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2015Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-08-00887-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4376 , at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, no pet.) (citing King v. Acker, supra). • 4th Court of Appeals—San Antonio In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (stating “[a]lthough an uncommon claim, Texas law recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 7th Court of Appeals—Amarillo Nordyke v. Nordyke, No. 07-96-00406-CV, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 55 , at *10-11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 7, 1998, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing 2015Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-08-00887-CV, 2010 WL6 2306418, at *5-6, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4376 at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, no pet.) (citing King v. Acker, supra). • 4th Court of Appeals—San Antonio In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (stating “[although an uncommon claim, Texas law recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 7th Court of Appeals—Amarillo Nordyke v. Nordyke, No. 07-96-00406-CV, 1998 WL 4508 , at *4, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 55 , at *10-11 (Tex. App.—Amarillo | 1 | 3 |
In Re Estate of Russellgreen1 sentence2015Urbanczyk v. Urbanczyk, 278 S.W.3d 829, 835 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (holding that a claim of tortious interference with inheritance rights was properly resolved against a will contestant because there was no evidence of damages). • 8th Court of Appeals—El Paso In re Estate of Russell, 311 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.) (stating “Texas recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 10th Court of Appeals—Waco Haisler v. Coburn, No. 10-09-00275-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6050 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Waco July 28, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. | 1 | 1 |
Urbanczyk v. Urbanczykgreen1 sentence2015Urbanczyk v. Urbanczyk, 278 S.W.3d 829, 835 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (holding that a claim of tortious interference with inheritance rights was properly resolved against a will contestant because there was no evidence of damages). • 8th Court of Appeals—El Paso In re Estate of Russell, 311 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.) (stating “Texas recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with inheritance rights”). • 10th Court of Appeals—Waco Haisler v. Coburn, No. 10-09-00275-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6050 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Waco July 28, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Garrettgreen1 sentence2013See King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (citing Pope v. Garrett, 204 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [Galveston] 1947) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on other grounds, 147 Tex. 18 , 211 S.W.2d 559 (1948)); Brandes, 966 S.W.2d at 146 (stating that King v. Acker is the only reported Texas case to that date involving tortious interference with inheritance rights). | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Garrettgreen2 sentences2013See King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (citing Pope v. Garrett, 204 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [Galveston] 1947) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on other grounds, 147 Tex. 18 , 211 S.W.2d 559 (1948)); Brandes, 966 S.W.2d at 146 (stating that King v. Acker is the only reported Texas case to that date involving tortious interference with inheritance rights). 2013See King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (citing Pope v. Garrett, 204 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [Galveston] 1947) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on other grounds, 147 Tex. 18 , 211 S.W.2d 559 (1948)); Brandes, 966 S.W.2d at 146 (stating that King v. Acker is the only reported Texas case to that date involving tortious interference with inheritance rights). | 1 | 1 |
Randle v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The cases show, for example, that it is not an uncommon defense tactic to produce the defendant in jail clothes in the hope of eliciting sympathy from the jury."); Randle , 826 S.W.2d at 945 (noting decision to be tried in jail clothing may be a matter of strategy). 26. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Jackson v.State , 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Hanscom
green
2 sentences1942It is, therefore, concluded that the ap-pellee in this instance, in making the automobile license fee collections and issuing the necessary receipts therefor, was not acting in his official capacity as assessor and collector of taxes for Harris County, but was simply performing additional services as the designated agent of the State Highway Department, which in Texas is not an uncommon requirement of a public officer. 34 Tex.Jur., page 447, Sec. 70; Johnson v. Hanscom, 90 Tex. 321 , 37 S.W. 601 , 38 S.W. 761 , dismissing error to Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W. 453 . 1942It is, therefore, concluded that the ap-pellee in this instance, in making the automobile license fee collections and issuing the necessary receipts therefor, was not acting in his official capacity as assessor and collector of taxes for Harris County, but was simply performing additional services as the designated agent of the State Highway Department, which in Texas is not an uncommon requirement of a public officer. 34 Tex.Jur., page 447, Sec. 70; Johnson v. Hanscom, 90 Tex. 321 , 37 S.W. 601 , 38 S.W. 761 , dismissing error to Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W. 453 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Dulaney v. Walsh
neutral
1 sentence1942It is, therefore, concluded that the ap-pellee in this instance, in making the automobile license fee collections and issuing the necessary receipts therefor, was not acting in his official capacity as assessor and collector of taxes for Harris County, but was simply performing additional services as the designated agent of the State Highway Department, which in Texas is not an uncommon requirement of a public officer. 34 Tex.Jur., page 447, Sec. 70; Johnson v. Hanscom, 90 Tex. 321 , 37 S.W. 601 , 38 S.W. 761 , dismissing error to Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W. 453 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.