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 1 courts 1988–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hardin v. Stategreen2 sentences2009"It is generally presumed on appeal that the court ruled correctly and that the appellant must show error." Hall v. State , 829 S.W.2d 407, 410-11 (Tex. App.--Waco 1992, no pet.) (citing Hardin v. State , 471 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. Crim. 2009“It is generally presumed on appeal that the court ruled correctly and that the appellant must show error.” Hall v. State, 829 S.W.2d 407, 410-11 (Tex.App.-Waco 1992, no pet.) (citing Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex.Crim.App.1971)). | 4 | 4 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88 (1984); accord Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. 2010Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2009"It is generally presumed on appeal that the court ruled correctly and that the appellant must show error." Hall v. State , 829 S.W.2d 407, 410-11 (Tex. App.--Waco 1992, no pet.) (citing Hardin v. State , 471 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. Crim. 2009“It is generally presumed on appeal that the court ruled correctly and that the appellant must show error.” Hall v. State, 829 S.W.2d 407, 410-11 (Tex.App.-Waco 1992, no pet.) (citing Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex.Crim.App.1971)). | 3 | 3 |
Dennis v. Hulsegreen2 sentences2005In Dennis v. Hulse, 362 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex. 1962), the Court held that an appellant must show the error probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment. 2005In Dennis v. Hulse, 362 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex. 1962), the Court held that an appellant must show the error probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment. | 3 | 3 |
Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, Inc.green2 sentences2005See also Knight v. Hicks, 505 S.W.2d 638, 644 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1974, writ re'fd n.r.e.); Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 645 S.W.2d 477, 482 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1982), aff'd , 659 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. 1983). 2005See also Knight v. Hicks, 505 S.W.2d 638, 644 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1974, writ re’fd n.r.e.); Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 645 S.W.2d 477, 482 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1982), aff’d , 659 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. 1983). | 3 | 3 |
Knight v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2005See also Knight v. Hicks, 505 S.W.2d 638, 644 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1974, writ re'fd n.r.e.); Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 645 S.W.2d 477, 482 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1982), aff'd , 659 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. 1983). 2005See also Knight v. Hicks, 505 S.W.2d 638, 644 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1974, writ re’fd n.r.e.); Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 645 S.W.2d 477, 482 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1982), aff’d , 659 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. 1983). | 3 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2000To meet the Strickland standard under a conflict of interest contention, the appellant must show that defense counsel “actively represented conflicting interests” and “an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). 2000To meet the Strickland standard under a conflict of interest contention, the appellant must show that defense counsel “actively represented conflicting interests” and “an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). | 2 | 4 |
Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.green2 sentences1996Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.1989); Chandler v. Chandler, 842 S.W.2d 829, 830 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, writ denied). 1992Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.1989). *831 Rule of Evidence 801 defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 801(d). | 2 | 2 |
Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appealsgreen1 sentence2015Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. 1985); Doncaster, 161 S.W.3d at 601 ; TEX. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Human Services v. Whitegreen1 sentence2014Tex.R.App.P. 44.1(a); In re D.I.B., 988 S.W.2d 753 , 756 n. 10 (Tex.1999); Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. White, 817 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Tex.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Montoya v. Stategreen1 sentence2009“It is appellant’s burden to not only preserve the alleged error for review, but to present a record of the alleged error sufficient for us to review it and determine if it was error and if so whether the defendant was harmed.” Montoya v. State, 43 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.); see also Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646, 651-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (“It is usually the appealing party’s burden to present a record showing properly preserved, reversible error.”); McCarty v. State, 227 S.W.3d 415, 418 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007) (“A defendant has the burden to present a record on appeal | 1 | 1 |
McCarty v. Stategreen1 sentence2009“It is appellant’s burden to not only preserve the alleged error for review, but to present a record of the alleged error sufficient for us to review it and determine if it was error and if so whether the defendant was harmed.” Montoya v. State, 43 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.); see also Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646, 651-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (“It is usually the appealing party’s burden to present a record showing properly preserved, reversible error.”); McCarty v. State, 227 S.W.3d 415, 418 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007) (“A defendant has the burden to present a record on appeal | 1 | 1 |
Word v. Stategreen1 sentence2009“It is appellant’s burden to not only preserve the alleged error for review, but to present a record of the alleged error sufficient for us to review it and determine if it was error and if so whether the defendant was harmed.” Montoya v. State, 43 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.); see also Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646, 651-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (“It is usually the appealing party’s burden to present a record showing properly preserved, reversible error.”); McCarty v. State, 227 S.W.3d 415, 418 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007) (“A defendant has the burden to present a record on appeal | 1 | 1 |
Chandler v. Chandlergreen1 sentence1996Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.1989); Chandler v. Chandler, 842 S.W.2d 829, 830 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Therefore, before we can reverse the appellant must show the error was calculated to injure his rights. 3 Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
Arline v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Therefore, before we can reverse the appellant must show the error was calculated to injure his rights. 3 Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005See also Knight v. Hicks, 505 S.W.2d 638, 644 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1974, writ re'fd n.r.e.); Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 645 S.W.2d 477, 482 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1982), aff'd , 659 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. 1983). 2005See also Knight v. Hicks, 505 S.W.2d 638, 644 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1974, writ re’fd n.r.e.); Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 645 S.W.2d 477, 482 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1982), aff’d , 659 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. 1983). | 3 | 2003–2005 |
Doncaster v. Hernaiz
green
1 sentence2015Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. 1985); Doncaster, 161 S.W.3d at 601 ; TEX. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re DIB
green
1 sentence2014Tex.R.App.P. 44.1(a); In re D.I.B., 988 S.W.2d 753 , 756 n. 10 (Tex.1999); Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. White, 817 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Tex.1991). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Estate of Johnson
green
1 sentence2013Johnson, 340 S.W.3d at 786 ; Tex. Disposal Sys. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
McCarty v. State
green
1 sentence2009“It is appellant’s burden to not only preserve the alleged error for review, but to present a record of the alleged error sufficient for us to review it and determine if it was error and if so whether the defendant was harmed.” Montoya v. State, 43 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.); see also Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646, 651-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (“It is usually the appealing party’s burden to present a record showing properly preserved, reversible error.”); McCarty v. State, 227 S.W.3d 415, 418 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007) (“A defendant has the burden to present a record on appeal | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State
green
1 sentence2007Interstate Northborough , 66 S.W.3d at 220 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cuyler v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2000To meet the Strickland standard under a conflict of interest contention, the appellant must show that defense counsel “actively represented conflicting interests” and “an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). 2000To meet the Strickland standard under a conflict of interest contention, the appellant must show that defense counsel “actively represented conflicting interests” and “an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences1988Hernandez v. Hernandez, 611 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1981, no writ); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales, 548 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Civ. 1988Hernandez v. Hernandez, 611 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1981, no writ); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales, 548 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 561 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1978). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales
green
1 sentence1988Hernandez v. Hernandez, 611 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1981, no writ); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales, 548 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 561 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1978). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hernandez v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences1988Hernandez v. Hernandez, 611 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1981, no writ); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales, 548 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Civ. 1988Hernandez v. Hernandez, 611 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1981, no writ); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales, 548 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 561 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1978). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.