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 3 courts 1993–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Poly-America, L.P.green2 sentences2013See Monsanto Co., 494 S.W.2d at 536 ; Kreighbaum, 2007 WL 1829729 , at * 2-3; see also In re Poly-America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 349 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding) (recognizing that, because trial court has no discretion to determine what the law is or apply the law incorrectly, its clear failure to properly analyze or apply the law constitutes an abuse of discretion). 2013See Monsanto Co., 494 S.W.2d at 536 ; Kreighbaum, 2007 WL 1829729 , at *2–3; see also In re Poly–America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 349 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (recognizing that, because trial court has no discretion to determine what the law is or apply the law incorrectly, its clear failure to properly analyze or apply the law constitutes an abuse of discretion). 26 pleading requesting attorney’s fees under specific theories. | 2 | 2 |
Monsanto Company v. Milamgreen2 sentences2013See Monsanto Co., 494 S.W.2d at 536 ; Kreighbaum, 2007 WL 1829729 , at * 2-3; see also In re Poly-America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 349 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding) (recognizing that, because trial court has no discretion to determine what the law is or apply the law incorrectly, its clear failure to properly analyze or apply the law constitutes an abuse of discretion). 2013See Monsanto Co., 494 S.W.2d at 536 ; Kreighbaum, 2007 WL 1829729 , at *2–3; see also In re Poly–America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 349 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (recognizing that, because trial court has no discretion to determine what the law is or apply the law incorrectly, its clear failure to properly analyze or apply the law constitutes an abuse of discretion). 26 pleading requesting attorney’s fees under specific theories. | 2 | 2 |
Littrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2020PENAL CODE ANN. § 20.01(2) (Supp.). 6 Blockburger analysis if the Legislature has made this intention clear.” McCrary, 327 S.W.3d at 173 (citing Littrell v. State, 271 S.W.3d 273, 276 (Tex. Crim. 2010Littrell, 271 S.W.3d at 276 . | 1 | 5 |
Okoli v. Texas Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2023See Okoli, 117 S.W.3d at 479 . | 1 | 1 |
Troxel v. Granvillegreen1 sentence2020In Troxel, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of Washington’s nonparent visitation statute, which allowed “[a]ny person” to petition for visitation with a child “at any time” and authorized the trial court to grant such visitation if it would be in the best interest of the child. 530 U.S. at 60 (plurality opinion) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Brisenogreen1 sentence2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Seatongreen2 sentences2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] 2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
Guzman v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n 2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 1 |
Drury v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n 2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Garzagreen1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
Stuart v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] 2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Daygreen1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dulaneygreen1 sentence2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n 2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bousumgreen2 sentences2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n 2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
Garry Vincent Featherstone v. Wayne E. Estelle, Wardengreen1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
Dufour v. Stategreen1 sentence2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baileygreen1 sentence2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Juan Chaparro-Alcantara and Jaime Romero-Bautistagreen1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
Gausvik v. Perezgreen1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindseygreen1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fryegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Geesa v. Statered | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Min v. Avila
green
2 sentences2022“Whatever the source of the evidence, the definitive test ‘is whether it demonstrates independent facts and circumstances that support, and thus corroborate, the challenger’s claim.’” Id. (quoting Min, 991 S.W.2d at 503 ). 2014Whatever the source of the evidence, the definitive test “is whether it demonstrates independent facts and circumstances that support, and thus corroborate, the challenger’s claim.” Id. | 3 | 2014–2025 |
Ex Parte Napper
green
1 sentence2020Although the Court of Criminal Appeals has not settled on a definitive test for determining when evidence is merely potentially useful, it has indicated that evidence is not potentially exculpatory when its potential value is based on (1) “mere speculation,” (2) when the evidence was “legally irrelevant to the crime charged,” or (3) when the chance that the evidence would exonerate the defendant was “virtually nil.” Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d at 231 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
McCrary v. State
green
1 sentence2020PENAL CODE ANN. § 20.01(2) (Supp.). 6 Blockburger analysis if the Legislature has made this intention clear.” McCrary, 327 S.W.3d at 173 (citing Littrell v. State, 271 S.W.3d 273, 276 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sterling Bank v. Willard M, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Davenport v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2015DAVENPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER COMPETING CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES The sole issue the Texas Supreme Court addressed in Davenport was “whether the court’s gag orders violate the guarantee of free expression contained in article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution, which provides in pertinent part: Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege….” 1 Id. at 7 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Eric Lee Jobson
green
2 sentences2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] 2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Berkley
green
1 sentence2010App. 1997) (“Nothing in the record on appeal hints, even remotely, that the police destroyed the car so that [defendant] could not examine it, or have it viewed by an expert.”); Dufour v. State, 905 So. 2d 42, 68 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla. 2003): “Under Youngblood, bad faith exists only when police intentionally destroy evidence they believe would exonerate a defendant.”); Guzman, 868 So. 2d at 510 (no showing that “any State actor intentionally deprived [defendant] of evidence which the State actor believed to be exculpatory”); Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 791 (n | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Billy Mac Thompson
green
1 sentence2010Some courts have expressly adopted the Trombetta formulation as the definitive test of bad faith.110 Other courts have focused on one or both of the Trombetta situations, characterizing bad faith as involving improper motivation or malice,111 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 ; United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); Stuart v. State, 127 Idaho 806, 816 , 907 P.2d 783, 793 (1995); State v. Lindsey, 543 So. 2d 886, 891 (La. 1989). 111 United States v. Garza, 435 F.3d 73, 75 (1st Cir. 2006) (Defendant must show “independent evidence that the [government] | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Donnelly v. DeChristoforo green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Darden v. Wainwright green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.