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.
19 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Sawyer Trustgreen2 sentences2019Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Trust, 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011). 2019Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Trust, 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011). | 3 | 3 |
Winfrey v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 884 (Tex. Crim. 2016See Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 884 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Reyes v. Credit Based Asset Servicing & Securitization Ex Rel. Pledged Property II LLCgreen2 sentences2012In re Estate of Arrendell, 213 S.W.3d 496, 502 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (court *677 reporter’s failure to record proceedings constitutes error in absence of express waiver by parties); Reyes v. Credit Based Asset Servicing & Securitization, 190 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (court reporter’s failure to transcribe proceedings in accordance with Tex.R.App. 2011In re Estate of Arrendell , 213 S.W.3d 496, 502 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (court reporter’s failure to record proceedings constitutes error in the absence of an express waiver by parties); Reyes v. Credit Based Asset Serv. & Securitization , 190 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (court reporter’s failure to transcribe the proceedings in accordance with Tex. R. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Estate of Arrendellgreen2 sentences2012In re Estate of Arrendell, 213 S.W.3d 496, 502 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (court *677 reporter’s failure to record proceedings constitutes error in absence of express waiver by parties); Reyes v. Credit Based Asset Servicing & Securitization, 190 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (court reporter’s failure to transcribe proceedings in accordance with Tex.R.App. 2011In re Estate of Arrendell , 213 S.W.3d 496, 502 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (court reporter’s failure to record proceedings constitutes error in the absence of an express waiver by parties); Reyes v. Credit Based Asset Serv. & Securitization , 190 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (court reporter’s failure to transcribe the proceedings in accordance with Tex. R. | 2 | 2 |
Marin v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Id .; see Marin v. State , 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. 1995Relying on Marin v. State, the Court of Appeals addressed the merits of the issue because “reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver.” Turner, 860 S.W.2d at 150-151 ; see Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279-80 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); but see Warren v. State, 693 S.W.2d 414, 416 (1985). | 2 | 2 |
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Second, while Houston is correct that the Court of Criminal Appeals in Turner reaffirmed that “the reading of the enhancement paragraphs at the penalty stage in a bifurcated trial and the entering of a plea thereto are mandatory” and held that a violation of article 36.01 is not subject to harmless error analysis, 897 S.W.2d at 788 , it did not directly address the correctness of this Court’s finding that the “reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver,” Turner v. State, 860 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993), rev’d on other 2010App. P. 47.2( b). [1] But see Turner , 897 S.W.2d at 787 (“[T]he Court of Appeals addressed the merits of the issue because ‘reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver.’” (quoting Turner v. State , 860 S.W.2d 147 , 150–51 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993))); Essary v. State , 53 Tex. Crim. 596, 604 , 111 S.W. 927, 931 (1908) (“[I]n a case where [the indictment has not been read to the jury,] the burden rests upon the state to show such conduct and acts upon the part of the defendant as may, in fairness, be treated and regarded as a waiver.” | 1 | 3 |
Texas Education Agency v. Leepergreen2 sentences2015The Court errs in ruling that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA), TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE §§ 37.001–.011, implicitly waives sovereign immunity so that defendants may be held liable for attorneys’ fees. 893 S.W.2d 432 , 445–46 (Tex.1994). 2015The Court errs in ruling that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA), TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE §§ 37.001–.011, implicitly waives sovereign immunity so that defendants may be held liable for attorneys’ fees. 893 S.W.2d 432 , 445–46 (Tex.1994). | 1 | 3 |
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Second, while Houston is correct that the Court of Criminal Appeals in Turner reaffirmed that “the reading of the enhancement paragraphs at the penalty stage in a bifurcated trial and the entering of a plea thereto are mandatory” and held that a violation of article 36.01 is not subject to harmless error analysis, 897 S.W.2d at 788 , it did not directly address the correctness of this Court’s finding that the “reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver,” Turner v. State, 860 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993), rev’d on other 2024Second, while Houston is correct that the Court of Criminal Appeals in Turner reaffirmed that “the reading of the enhancement paragraphs at the penalty stage in a bifurcated trial and the entering of a plea thereto are mandatory” and held that a violation of article 36.01 is not subject to harmless error analysis, 897 S.W.2d at 788 , it did not directly address the correctness of this Court’s finding that the “reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver,” Turner v. State, 860 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993), rev’d on other | 1 | 2 |
Prihoda v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Gilley — 8 dispose of it on discretionary review in the name of judicial economy.18 A remand in this cause would require the court of appeals potentially to address a number of ancillary issues, including: (1) whether it is appropriate to reach the appellant’s right-to-counsel argument in light of the fact that it was embedded in a multifarious point of error on appeal;19 and (2) whether the appellant’s right-to-counsel claim is subject to forfeiture by a failure to object at trial, or is, alternatively, a waiver-only right that can be raised for the first time on appeal in the absence of an e | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Gilley — 8 dispose of it on discretionary review in the name of judicial economy.18 A remand in this cause would require the court of appeals potentially to address a number of ancillary issues, including: (1) whether it is appropriate to reach the appellant’s right-to-counsel argument in light of the fact that it was embedded in a multifarious point of error on appeal;19 and (2) whether the appellant’s right-to-counsel claim is subject to forfeiture by a failure to object at trial, or is, alternatively, a waiver-only right that can be raised for the first time on appeal in the absence of an e | 1 | 1 |
Mendez v. Stategreen1 sentence2010App. P. 47.2( b). [1] But see Turner , 897 S.W.2d at 787 (“[T]he Court of Appeals addressed the merits of the issue because ‘reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver.’” (quoting Turner v. State , 860 S.W.2d 147 , 150–51 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993))); Essary v. State , 53 Tex. Crim. 596, 604 , 111 S.W. 927, 931 (1908) (“[I]n a case where [the indictment has not been read to the jury,] the burden rests upon the state to show such conduct and acts upon the part of the defendant as may, in fairness, be treated and regarded as a waiver.” | 1 | 1 |
Essary v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. P. 47.2( b). [1] But see Turner , 897 S.W.2d at 787 (“[T]he Court of Appeals addressed the merits of the issue because ‘reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver.’” (quoting Turner v. State , 860 S.W.2d 147 , 150–51 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993))); Essary v. State , 53 Tex. Crim. 596, 604 , 111 S.W. 927, 931 (1908) (“[I]n a case where [the indictment has not been read to the jury,] the burden rests upon the state to show such conduct and acts upon the part of the defendant as may, in fairness, be treated and regarded as a waiver.” 2010App. P. 47.2( b). [1] But see Turner , 897 S.W.2d at 787 (“[T]he Court of Appeals addressed the merits of the issue because ‘reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver.’” (quoting Turner v. State , 860 S.W.2d 147 , 150–51 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993))); Essary v. State , 53 Tex. Crim. 596, 604 , 111 S.W. 927, 931 (1908) (“[I]n a case where [the indictment has not been read to the jury,] the burden rests upon the state to show such conduct and acts upon the part of the defendant as may, in fairness, be treated and regarded as a waiver.” | 1 | 1 |
Duhart v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 741-42 (Tex.1980). 1998See Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 741-42 (Tex.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen1 sentence1995However, relying on Roberts v. State, the Court of Appeals held the Article 36.01 violation was harmless under Tex. R.App.Proc. 81(b)(2) because “rigorous adherence to article 36.01(a)(1) would have served no purpose.” 1 Turner, 860 S.W.2d at 151 ; see Roberts v. State, 784 S.W.2d 430, 435-36 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Duckett v. Stategreen2 sentences1974See Duckett v. State, 454 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ring v. State, supra; Perez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). [5] Prior to the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, the problem frequently arose as to whether or not the record was sufficient to overcome the recitals in the judgment. 1974See Duckett v. State, 454 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) ; Ring v. State, supra; Perez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Warren v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Relying on Marin v. State, the Court of Appeals addressed the merits of the issue because “reading of the charging instrument is a right that must be implemented in the absence of an express waiver.” Turner, 860 S.W.2d at 150-151 ; see Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279-80 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); but see Warren v. State, 693 S.W.2d 414, 416 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Long
green
1 sentence2024Third, the Ex parte Long Court held that the absence of an express waiver of the right to indictment on the record is not “error subject to collateral attack absent objection at trial or a showing of harm.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Davison, Anthony Ray
green
1 sentence2014Gilley — 8 dispose of it on discretionary review in the name of judicial economy.18 A remand in this cause would require the court of appeals potentially to address a number of ancillary issues, including: (1) whether it is appropriate to reach the appellant’s right-to-counsel argument in light of the fact that it was embedded in a multifarious point of error on appeal;19 and (2) whether the appellant’s right-to-counsel claim is subject to forfeiture by a failure to object at trial, or is, alternatively, a waiver-only right that can be raised for the first time on appeal in the absence of an e | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Oliver
green
1 sentence2013See id. at 24; Oliver, 29 S.W.3d at 192 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Perez v. State
green
2 sentences1974See Duckett v. State, 454 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ring v. State, supra; Perez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). [5] Prior to the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, the problem frequently arose as to whether or not the record was sufficient to overcome the recitals in the judgment. 1974See Duckett v. State, 454 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) ; Ring v. State, supra; Perez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.