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.
21 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Petersongreen2 sentences2007But as the discerning reader will have already noted, both Wheeler and Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003), were "split the difference" decisions which attempted to steer a middle course between the "harsh" but clear Kennedy rule and the "kinder, gentler" but ambiguous Bauder rule. 2007But as the discerning reader will have already noted, both Wheeler and Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003), were "split the difference” decisions which attempted to steer a middle course between the "harsh" but clear Kennedy rule and the "kinder, gentler” but ambiguous Bauder rule. | 6 | 14 |
Bauder v. Statered2 sentences2007NOTES [1] 456 U.S. 667, 679 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). [2] 921 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). [3] We granted three grounds for review: (1) Should this Court reconsider its decision in Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)? (2) Is the mere showing that a prosecutor recklessly engaged in conduct that required the declaration of a mistrial, without showing that the prosecutor intended to induce such mistrial, sufficient to order a double jeopardy bar to reprosecution for that offense? (3) Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the Bauder standard? 2007NOTES [1] 456 U.S. 667, 679 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). [2] 921 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). [3] We granted three grounds for review: (1) Should this Court reconsider its decision in Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)? (2) Is the mere showing that a prosecutor recklessly engaged in conduct that required the declaration of a mistrial, without showing that the prosecutor intended to induce such mistrial, sufficient to order a double jeopardy bar to reprosecution for that offense? (3) Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the Bauder standard? | 2 | 5 |
Malik v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 1 |
Bawcom v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 1 |
Awadelkariem v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 1 |
Hulit v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Lewisgreen2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 1 |
Janney v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Janney v. State, 938 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.); Bauder v. State, 936 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1996, pet. granted) (op. on remand). 1997See Janney v. State, 938 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.); Bauder v. State, 936 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1996, pet. granted) (op. on remand). | 1 | 1 |
Bauder v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Janney v. State, 938 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.); Bauder v. State, 936 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1996, pet. granted) (op. on remand). 1997See Janney v. State, 938 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.); Bauder v. State, 936 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1996, pet. granted) (op. on remand). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Mitchell
green
2 sentences2008Davis, 957 S.W.2d at 12-15 ; Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d at 580-81 . 2008Davis, 957 S.W.2d at 12-15 ; Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d at 580-81 . . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Ex Parte Davis
green
2 sentences2008Davis, 957 S.W.2d at 12-15 ; Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d at 580-81 . 2008Davis, 957 S.W.2d at 12-15 ; Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d at 580-81 . . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. 2007Due to our disposition of the first two grounds, we dismiss the State's third ground for review. [4] See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] Ex parte Lewis, 165 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005)(brackets in original). [6] Id. at 381 (brackets in original). [7] Id. (brackets in original). [8] Id. at 380-381 . [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id. at 381 . [12] Id. at 381-392 (evaluating the case under Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003)(hereinafter referred to in the body of this opinion as Peterson II )). [13] Id. at 392. [14] Malik v. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Oregon v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] 456 U.S. 667, 679 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). [2] 921 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). [3] We granted three grounds for review: (1) Should this Court reconsider its decision in Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)? (2) Is the mere showing that a prosecutor recklessly engaged in conduct that required the declaration of a mistrial, without showing that the prosecutor intended to induce such mistrial, sufficient to order a double jeopardy bar to reprosecution for that offense? (3) Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the Bauder standard? 2007NOTES [1] 456 U.S. 667, 679 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). [2] 921 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). [3] We granted three grounds for review: (1) Should this Court reconsider its decision in Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)? (2) Is the mere showing that a prosecutor recklessly engaged in conduct that required the declaration of a mistrial, without showing that the prosecutor intended to induce such mistrial, sufficient to order a double jeopardy bar to reprosecution for that offense? (3) Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the Bauder standard? | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.