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 2 courts 1999–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dylan Andrew Quick v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Quick v. State, 557 S.W.3d 775, 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d); Battle, 348 S.W.3d at 30-31 . 2019See Battle v. State, 348 S.W.3d 29 , 30–31 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see also Quick v. State, 557 S.W.3d 775, 788 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. filed). | 3 | 3 |
Melendez v. Exxon Corp.green2 sentences2021Evid. 103(a); Melendez v. Exxon Corp., 998 S.W.2d 266, 278 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“If the trial court sustains an objection and rules the evidence inadmissible, an appellant must preserve error by making a record, through a bill of exceptions, of the precise evidence the party desires admitted.”). 17 counsel from asking him the particulars of his treatment while incarcerated, including what opportunities he had and when treatment was first available to him. 2020Evid. 103(a); Melendez v. Exxon Corp., 998 S.W.2d 266, 278 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“If the trial court sustains an objection and rules the evidence inadmissible, an appellant must preserve error by making a record, through a bill of exceptions, of the precise evidence the party desires admitted.”). 17 opportunities he had and when treatment was first available to him. | 2 | 2 |
Valle v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Valle v. State , 109 S.W.3d 500, 508-09 (Tex. Crim. 2005Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 508-09 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Battle v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Quick v. State, 557 S.W.3d 775, 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d); Battle, 348 S.W.3d at 30-31 . 2019See Battle v. State, 348 S.W.3d 29 , 30–31 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see also Quick v. State, 557 S.W.3d 775, 788 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. filed). | 1 | 3 |
Bridwell v. Muldergreen1 sentence2020See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008); Bridwell v. Mulder, 315 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 4 _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on November 19, 2019 Opinion Delivered January 23, 2020 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 5 | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Cohengreen1 sentence2020See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008); Bridwell v. Mulder, 315 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 4 _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on November 19, 2019 Opinion Delivered January 23, 2020 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 5 | 1 | 1 |
Saldano v. Stategreen1 sentence2020In a landmark decision in the law of error preservation, the Court of Criminal Appeals, in Marin v. State, determined that an appellant must preserve error in the trial court as to all complaints, except as to two relatively small categories of errors: violations of “rights which are waivable only” and denials of “absolute systemic requirements.” See Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 888 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Marin v. Stategreen1 sentence2020App. 2002); Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Barnett v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Thomas v. State, 312 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d); Freeman v. State, 115 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Barnett v. State, 189 S.W.3d 272 , 277–78 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Kojuan J Miles v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Miles v. State, 468 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015), aff’d on other grounds, 506 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Thomas v. State, 312 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d); Freeman v. State, 115 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Barnett v. State, 189 S.W.3d 272 , 277–78 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
C.M. Asfahl Agency v. Tensor Inc.green1 sentence2017See Tensor, Inc., 135 S.W.3d at 786 (legal sufficiency challenge preserved by motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, objection to submitting issue to jury, motion to disregard jury finding on issue, or motion for new trial); In re C.E.M., 64 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (including complaint in motion for new trial is only way to preserve factual sufficiency challenge); see also Burbage, 447 S.W.3d at 257 (objection must apprise trial court of error alleged such that court has opportunity to correct problem); In re S.H.V., | 1 | 1 |
In Re CEMgreen1 sentence2017See Tensor, Inc., 135 S.W.3d at 786 (legal sufficiency challenge preserved by motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, objection to submitting issue to jury, motion to disregard jury finding on issue, or motion for new trial); In re C.E.M., 64 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (including complaint in motion for new trial is only way to preserve factual sufficiency challenge); see also Burbage, 447 S.W.3d at 257 (objection must apprise trial court of error alleged such that court has opportunity to correct problem); In re S.H.V., | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of S.H v. and P.J.V.C. Childrengreen1 sentence2017See Tensor, Inc., 135 S.W.3d at 786 (legal sufficiency challenge preserved by motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, objection to submitting issue to jury, motion to disregard jury finding on issue, or motion for new trial); In re C.E.M., 64 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (including complaint in motion for new trial is only way to preserve factual sufficiency challenge); see also Burbage, 447 S.W.3d at 257 (objection must apprise trial court of error alleged such that court has opportunity to correct problem); In re S.H.V., | 1 | 1 |
Allen Chadwick Burbage v. W. Kirk Burbage and Burbage Funeral Homegreen1 sentence2017See Tensor, Inc., 135 S.W.3d at 786 (legal sufficiency challenge preserved by motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, objection to submitting issue to jury, motion to disregard jury finding on issue, or motion for new trial); In re C.E.M., 64 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (including complaint in motion for new trial is only way to preserve factual sufficiency challenge); see also Burbage, 447 S.W.3d at 257 (objection must apprise trial court of error alleged such that court has opportunity to correct problem); In re S.H.V., | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Townsendgreen1 sentence2015Incorporation of Marin v. State Marin v. State, the watershed decision on whether rights are subject to procedural default—and therefore whether Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1’s general preservation requirement applies14 —provides a ready categorization structure well ingrained in our criminal law.15 Whether an appellant must preserve error is controlled by where in 13 Ex parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Fuller v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220 , 232–33 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
LACAZE v. State
green
2 sentences2015Lacaze, 346 S.W.3d at 119 ; see also Tex. R. 2015Lacaze, 346 S.W.3d at 119 ; see also Tex. R. | 4 | 2015–2015 |
Pat Baker Co., Inc. v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2020For the reasons explained above, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 5 Id. 165a(1). 6 See generally id. 165a. 7 To obtain a reversal for an alleged error dismissing a case with prejudice, the appellant must preserve the error in the trial court and argue it in the appeal. 2020For the reasons explained above, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 5 Id. 165a(1). 6 See generally id. 165a. 7 To obtain a reversal for an alleged error dismissing a case with prejudice, the appellant must preserve the error in the trial court and argue it in the appeal. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Freeman v. State
green
1 sentence2019See Thomas v. State, 312 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d); Freeman v. State, 115 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Barnett v. State, 189 S.W.3d 272 , 277–78 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Miles, Kojuan J.
green
1 sentence2019Miles v. State, 468 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015), aff’d on other grounds, 506 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Estate of Veale v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.