21 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mechlergreen2 sentences2013State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); Manning v. State, 114 S.W.3d 922, 927-28 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). 2013State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
McCraw v. Marisgreen2 sentences2005See McCraw v. Maris, 837 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.1992) (refusing to admit an unfiled and unwit-nessed handwritten insurance beneficiary designation form under 803(15)); Compton v. WWV Enters., 679 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1984, no writ) (affidavit of heirship not admissible under 803(15)). 2005See McCraw v. Maris , 837 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990), rev’d on other grounds , 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (refusing to admit an unfiled and unwitnessed handwritten insurance beneficiary designation form under 803(15)); Compton v. WWV Enters. , 679 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, no writ) (affidavit of heirship not admissible under 803(15)). | 3 | 3 |
McCraw v. Marisgreen2 sentences2005See McCraw v. Maris, 837 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.1992) (refusing to admit an unfiled and unwit-nessed handwritten insurance beneficiary designation form under 803(15)); Compton v. WWV Enters., 679 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1984, no writ) (affidavit of heirship not admissible under 803(15)). 2005See McCraw v. Maris , 837 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990), rev’d on other grounds , 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (refusing to admit an unfiled and unwitnessed handwritten insurance beneficiary designation form under 803(15)); Compton v. WWV Enters. , 679 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, no writ) (affidavit of heirship not admissible under 803(15)). | 3 | 3 |
Compton v. WWV ENTERPRISESgreen2 sentences2005See McCraw v. Maris, 837 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.1992) (refusing to admit an unfiled and unwit-nessed handwritten insurance beneficiary designation form under 803(15)); Compton v. WWV Enters., 679 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1984, no writ) (affidavit of heirship not admissible under 803(15)). 2005See McCraw v. Maris , 837 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990), rev’d on other grounds , 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (refusing to admit an unfiled and unwitnessed handwritten insurance beneficiary designation form under 803(15)); Compton v. WWV Enters. , 679 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, no writ) (affidavit of heirship not admissible under 803(15)). | 3 | 3 |
Aviles v. Stategreen2 sentences2002However, in Aviles v. State, 23 S.W.3d 74, 80 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist. 2000, pet. ref'd), the court suggested that the factors set forth in article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were relevant to setting bond under article 44.04(h). 2001However, in Aviles v. State, 23 S.W.3d 74, 80 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd), the court suggested that the factors set out in article 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure were relevant to setting bond under article 44.04(h). | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
Villarreal v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 340 ; Hobbs, 298 S.W.3d 193 (holding that when defendant raised single claim stating supporting facts he did not intentionally relinquish his right to jury trial, no fishing expedition was involved and trial judge abused discretion in refusing to hold hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Alabamagreen1 sentence2015See Miller v. Alabama, Id. at 2458 . | 1 | 1 |
Manning v. Stategreen1 sentence2013State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); Manning v. State, 114 S.W.3d 922, 927-28 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leroy Georgegreen1 sentence2008The earliest Texas cases to address the criteria for admissibility of child-victim 61 United States v. George, 960 F.2d 97, 100 (9th Cir. 1992). 62 See Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The earliest Texas cases to address the criteria for admissibility of child-victim 61 United States v. George, 960 F.2d 97, 100 (9th Cir. 1992). 62 See Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Beavers v. Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc.green1 sentence2003Beavers v. Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc., 821 S.W.2d 669, 675 (Tex.App.-Amarfflo 1991, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Aubrey J. CROSS and John Lee Parks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL TRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appelleegreen1 sentence2002Co., 553 F.2d 1026, 1029 (6th Cir.1977) (“A district court has broad discretion in determining whether a particular case may proceed as a class action so long as it applies the criteria of rule 23 correctly.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rhodesgreen1 sentence1999See State v. Rhodes, 966 S.W.2d 610, 613 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (holding that article 1.13(a) applies to a defendant’s subsequent waiver of a jury of less than twelve); Maten v. State, 962 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (holding “a defendant can waive the right to a jury composed of 12 persons the same way the defendant could waive, in entirety, the right of trial by jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
Maten v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See State v. Rhodes, 966 S.W.2d 610, 613 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (holding that article 1.13(a) applies to a defendant’s subsequent waiver of a jury of less than twelve); Maten v. State, 962 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (holding “a defendant can waive the right to a jury composed of 12 persons the same way the defendant could waive, in entirety, the right of trial by jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Horninggreen1 sentence1980Rule 166-A(c) provides that: A summary judgment may be based on uncontroverted testimonial evidence of an interested witness, or of an expert witness as to subject matter concerning which the trier of fact must be guided solely by the opinion testimony of experts, if the evidence is clear, positive and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted. [Emphasis added.] In Duncan v. Horning, 587 S.W.2d 471, 472-74 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1979, no writ), we held that the testimony of an interested expert witness, as well as that o | 1 | 1 |
Combs v. Fantastic Homes, Inc.green1 sentence1980Combs v. Fantastic Homes, Inc., 584 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hobbs v. State
green
1 sentence2015See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 340 ; Hobbs, 298 S.W.3d 193 (holding that when defendant raised single claim stating supporting facts he did not intentionally relinquish his right to jury trial, no fishing expedition was involved and trial judge abused discretion in refusing to hold hearing). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ex Parte Rubac
green
2 sentences2012However, this court has found that it is logical to consider the same criteria and factors used by courts in determining the amounts of (1) pretrial bail under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.15, and (2) post- conviction appeal bonds under Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 , 849–50 (Tex. Crim. 2012However, this court has found that it is logical to consider the same criteria and factors used by courts in determining the amounts of (1) pretrial bail under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.15, and (2) post- conviction appeal bonds under Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 , 849–50 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
2 sentences1992However, in doing so, we must point out that nothing in our original opinion should be construed as holding that the evidence which appellee contended entitled him to the fourth special issue or an instruction of like nature, met the criteria for such an instruction set out in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). 1992However, in doing so, we must point out that nothing in our original opinion should be construed as holding that the evidence which appellee contended entitled him to the fourth special issue or an instruction of like nature, met the criteria for such an instruction set out in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Channel Two Television Co. v. Dickerson
green
2 sentences1991That case was decided in favor of the privilege based on the plaintiff’s failure to make a showing that the information sought met the other criteria of the test. 725 S.W.2d at 472 . 1991That case was decided in favor of the privilege based on the plaintiff's failure to make a showing that the information sought met the other criteria of the test. 725 S.W.2d at 472 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority
green
1 sentence1983Cloys v. Turbin, supra; City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, supra; State v. American Legion Post No. 58, 611 S.W.2d *659 720 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1981, no writ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Cloys v. Turbin
green
1 sentence1983Cloys v. Turbin, supra; City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, supra; State v. American Legion Post No. 58, 611 S.W.2d *659 720 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1981, no writ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.