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.
131 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Southwest Country Enterprises, Inc. v. Lucky Lady Oil Co.green2 sentences2015See Southwest Country Enters., Inc. v. Lucky Lady Oil Co., 991 S.W.2d 490, 494-95 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied). 2013See Southwest Country Enters., Inc. v. Lucky Lady Oil Co., 991 S.W.2d 490, 494-95 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied). | 14 | 14 |
Fletcher v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2025Co., 57 S.W.3d 602, 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)). 2020“Texas recognizes two types of offers to preserve error: the offer of proof (formerly referred to as an informal bill of exception) and the formal bill of exception.” Fletcher, 57 S.W.3d at 606 . | 4 | 5 |
Landers v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Landers, 402 S.W.3d at 256 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (Keller, P.J. concurring) (citing Warren v. State, 693 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)). 2015See id., 402 S.W.3d at 256 (Keller, P.J., concurring). | 4 | 4 |
Guidry v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Id.; Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 153 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cer t. denied, 531 U.S. 837 , 121 S.Ct. 98 , 148 L.Ed.2d 57 (2000); Jenkins v. State, 948 S.W.2d 769, 775 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. ref’d). 2004Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 153 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Bobbora v. Unitrin Insurance Servicesgreen2 sentences2018Servs., 255 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (noting that if no offer of proof is made before trial court, party must introduce excluded testimony into record by formal bill of 12 exception); cf. Clifton v. State, No. 05-09-00006-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 8199 , at *17 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Assuming without deciding, the trial court erred [by not allowing Clifton to make an offer of proof], the issue is not properly preserved for appeal because Clifton did not file a formal bill of exception. 2015Servs., 255 S.W.3d 331 , 334–35 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (recognizing that when an offer of proof is not made before the charge is read to the jury, then a formal bill of exception is necessary to preserve error); see also TEX. | 3 | 4 |
In Re Estate of Millergreen2 sentences2017“When no offer of proof is made before the trial court, the party must introduce the excluded testimony into the record by a formal bill of exception.” Industrial III, Inc. v. Burns, No. 14-1300386, 2014 WL 4202495 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 26, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 837 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)). 2013In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 837 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). 2 When there is no offer of proof made before the trial court, the appellant must introduce the excluded evidence into the record by a formal bill of exception. | 3 | 4 |
Seefurth v. Stategreen2 sentences1972At the time the Bill was presented to me, some six months after the trial, I was under the impression I was allowing the filing of same out of time, and to avoid Judge Benavides having to return to Houston and did not intend to lend any credence to the matters of fact stated therein, which for the reasons stated above, I could have had no knowledge whatsoever.” In Seefurth v. State, 422 S.W.2d 931, 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), this court said: “It is true that where the record fails to disclose some action, testimony, objection, event, etc., a formal bill of exception may be utilized to supply the d 1969A defendant cannot use the office of a formal bill of exception as a substitute for the procedure required by Articles 36.14 and 36.15, supra. Seefurth v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 931 . | 3 | 4 |
Spivey v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2004See Spivey v. James, 1 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1999, pet. denied). 2004See Spivey v. James, 1 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1999, pet. denied). | 3 | 3 |
Lone Starr Multi-Theatres, Ltd. v. Max Interests, Ltd.green2 sentences2015Lone Starr Multi-Theetres, Ltd. v. Max Interests, Ltd., 365 S.W. 3d 688 (Tex. App.-Houston [1't Dist] 2011. no pet.) see also Sink v. Sink,364 W.\M. 3d 340 (Tex. App.-Dallas, 2012 no pet ("Texas rccognizes two types of offers to preserve error: the offer of proof and the formal bill of exception. 2012Preservation of Johnson’s Complaint “There are two types of offers to preserve error: the offer of proof (formerly referred to as an informal bill of exception) and the formal bill of exception.” Lone Starr Multi-Theatres, Ltd. v. Max Interests, Ltd., 365 S.W.3d 688, 703 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). | 2 | 3 |
Barnard v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Barnard v. State, 730 S.W.2d 703 , 717–18 (Tex. Crim. 2002Id.; e.g., Barnard v. State, 730 S.W.2d 703, 718 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); See Jenkins v. State, 948 S.W.2d 769, 775 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. refd). | 2 | 3 |
Sink v. Sinkgreen2 sentences2021Sink, 364 S.W.3d at 347 (citations omitted); see TEX. 2017See id. | 2 | 2 |
Low v. Henrygreen2 sentences2018E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); see also Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620 . 11 GayeLynne timely filed a formal bill of exception containing largely the same evidence she presented in her offers of proof at trial and the same exhibits the trial court admitted at trial “for record purposes only.” See Tex. R. 2018E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); see also Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620 . 11 GayeLynne timely filed a formal bill of exception containing largely the same evidence she presented in her offers of proof at trial and the same exhibits the trial court admitted at trial “for record purposes only.” See Tex. R. | 2 | 2 |
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2018E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); see also Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620 . 11 GayeLynne timely filed a formal bill of exception containing largely the same evidence she presented in her offers of proof at trial and the same exhibits the trial court admitted at trial “for record purposes only.” See Tex. R. 2018E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); see also Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620 . 11 GayeLynne timely filed a formal bill of exception containing largely the same evidence she presented in her offers of proof at trial and the same exhibits the trial court admitted at trial “for record purposes only.” See Tex. R. | 2 | 2 |
Shafer v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Id.; Shafer v. State, 82 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d). 2005App. P. 33.2; see also Shafer v. State , 82 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2002, pet. ref'd) (noting excluded evidence must be brought forward either through a timely offer of proof or a formal bill of exception in order to preserve error). | 2 | 2 |
Reyna v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Reyna v. State , 168 S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tex. Crim. 2009Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
W & F Transportation, Inc. v. Wilhelmgreen2 sentences2007See id. 2007See id. | 2 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Id.; Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 153 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cer t. denied, 531 U.S. 837 , 121 S.Ct. 98 , 148 L.Ed.2d 57 (2000); Jenkins v. State, 948 S.W.2d 769, 775 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. ref’d). 2002Id.; e.g., Barnard v. State, 730 S.W.2d 703, 718 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); See Jenkins v. State, 948 S.W.2d 769, 775 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. refd). | 2 | 2 |
Mathews v. Stategreen2 sentences1988Mathews v. State, 635 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). 1983As we noted in Matthews v. State, 635 S.W.2d 532, 537 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), because of the enactment of Art. 40.09, supra, formal bills of exception have virtually ceased to be used by defendants to perfect a ground of alleged error. | 2 | 2 |
Haygood v. Stategreen2 sentences2021P. 33.2 (“To complain on appeal about a matter that would not otherwise appear in the record, a party must file a formal bill of exception.”); Cf. Haygood v. State, 127 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. ref’d) (“At 1:25 p.m. the hearing reconvened on the record, in the presence of the State, defense counsel, and defendant. 2004We will review a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 153-54 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); however, to preserve such a complaint for appellate review, the complaining party “must bring forward a record indicating the nature of the evidence” and, “[i]f the excluded evidence is not apparent from the context of the record, it must be brought forward either through a timely offer of proof or a formal bill of exception,” Haygood v. State, No. 04-02-00685-CR, 127 S.W.3d 805, 812 , 2003 WL 22656878, at *5 , 2003 Tex.App. | 1 | 2 |
Hollins v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Hollins v. State, 805 S.W.2d 475, 476-77 (Tex. Crim. 1996Hollins v. State, 805 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 823, 829 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). | 1 | 2 |
Crew v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Crew, 387 S.W.2d at 899 . 1997Crew, 387 S.W.2d at 899 . | 1 | 2 |
| Rideaux v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Solomon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dale L. Johnson v. National Oilwell Varco, LPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Huckabee v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Larson v. Downinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whitehead v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Word v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mentis v. Barnardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robert Louis Rosseaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Warren v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| London v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sparks v. Boothgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bryan v. Watumullgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Raw Hide Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Maxus Exploration Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Salazar v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lewis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Continental Trailways, Inc. v. McCandlessgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDuffie v. Blassingame
green
2 sentences2004McDuffie, 883 S.W.2d at 335 . 2004McDuffie, 883 S.W.2d at 335 . | 4 | 2004–2004 |
Boatwright v. State
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., Word, 206 S.W.3d at 651–652 & n.10 (noting its agreement with the long-standing rule that a defendant must preserve error by making a timely objection to the trial court’s failure to follow the correct statutory procedures in responding to a communication by the jury); Boatwright v. State, 933 S.W.2d 309 , 310–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (concluding that appellant failed to properly preserve asserted error with regard to the trial court’s alleged non-compliance with article 36.27 because appellant failed to object or file a formal bill of exception); see also T 2002Boatwright , 933 S.W.2d at 310 B 11. | 2 | 2002–2019 |
Sisk v. Random
green
2 sentences2015Sisk v. Randon, 123 Tex. 326 , 70 S.W.2d Gen. 1988Sisk v. Randon, 123 Tex. 326 , 70 S.W.2d 689, 692 (1934); Fountain v. Nelson, 546 S.W.2d 102, 104 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1977, no writ); Goodpasture v. Coastal Industrial Water Authority, 490 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Dyches v. Ellis, 199 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1947, no writ). | 2 | 1988–2015 |
Joyce McMillin Sturdivant v. State
green
2 sentences2015First, the State argued “that appellant could have raised the issue in a formal bill of exception pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 33.2.” -10- Sturdivant, 445 S.W.3d at 440 . 2015The appellant cites Sturdivant v. State, 445 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d), in support of his claim that a formal bill of exception was not required to develop the record. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Curry v. State
green
2 sentences1986When we considered these two holdings in Curry, supra, we held that Art. 40.09, sec. 5, supra, afforded Texas appellants a broader right than that given by the United States Constitution, and added: “Of course, the parties with the approval of the trial court, may utilize an agreed statement of facts, Article 40.09 § 14, supra, and a formal bill of exception may be used to disclose some action, event, testimony, etc., not otherwise shown by the record. 1986When we considered these two holdings in Curry, supra, we held that Art. 40.09, sec. 5, supra, afforded Texas appellants a broader right than that given by the United States Constitution, and added: "Of course, the parties with the approval of the trial court, may utilize an agreed statement of facts, Article 40.09 § 14, supra, and a formal bill of exception may be used to disclose some action, event, testimony, etc., not otherwise shown by the record. | 2 | 1974–1986 |
Caldwell v. State
neutral
2 sentences1966Young v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 454 , 243 S.W.2d 587 ; Caldwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 242 ; Longoria v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 877 . 1964Art. 760e, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Young v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 454 , 243 S.W.2d 587 ; Calanchi v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 97 , 332 S.W.2d 722 ; Caldwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 242 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Adame v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 545 ; Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 306 . | 2 | 1964–1966 |
Young v. State
neutral
2 sentences1966Young v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 454 , 243 S.W.2d 587 ; Caldwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 242 ; Longoria v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 877 . 1966Young v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 454 , 243 S.W.2d 587 ; Caldwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 242 ; Longoria v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 877 . | 2 | 1964–1966 |
Calanchi v. State
neutral
2 sentences1964Art. 760e, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Young v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 454 , 243 S.W.2d 587 ; Calanchi v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 97 , 332 S.W.2d 722 ; Caldwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 242 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Adame v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 545 ; Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 306 . 1964Art. 760e, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Young v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 454 , 243 S.W.2d 587 ; Calanchi v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 97 , 332 S.W.2d 722 ; Caldwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 242 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Adame v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 545 ; Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 306 . | 2 | 1963–1964 |
Fernandez v. State
green
2 sentences1959Fernandez v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 266 , 254 S.W.2d 1004 . 1959Fernandez v. State, 158 Texas Cr. | 2 | 1959–1959 |
| Gulf, Texas & Western Railway Co. v. Dickey green | 2 | 1918–1919 |
| Mauricio Gomez v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Miller v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In re Harrison green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State of Texas v. Rosseau, Robert Louis green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Mayer v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| McInnes v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Warner v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Darnes v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Dorenbos v. Washington green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Morrow v. Texas green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Goff v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Farrar v. State green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Biddle v. National Old Line Insurance Company green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Gasery v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.