19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maurice Sloan II v. Goldberg B'Nai B'rith Towersgreen2 sentences2021See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b). 3 See Porter v. Porter, No. 04-20-00229-CV, 2021 WL 2117923 , at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because attorney's fees were authorized but the evidence was insufficient under Rohrmoos to support the amounts awarded, the proper remedy is to reverse the awards and remand the case for a new hearing on fees.”); Sloane v. Goldberg B’Nai B’Rith Towers, 577 S.W.3d 608, 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“The proper remedy in cases where the evidence fails to satisfy the standards for determining fees under the lodestar 2021See Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 506 ; Sloane v. Goldberg B’Nai B’Rith Towers, 577 S.W.3d 608, 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); see also Zaidi v. Shah, 502 S.W.3d 434, 446 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (appellate courts may not generally grant greater relief than requested). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.green2 sentences2010Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc. (Paradigm I), 161 S.W.3d 531, 538 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). 2010Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc. (Paradigm I), 161 S.W.3d 531, 538 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Usaa Texas Lloyds Company v. Gail Menchacagreen1 sentence2021We have remanded cases in the interest of justice before when “one or more parties ‘proceeded under the wrong legal theory,’” USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 521 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 603 (Tex. 1993)), when “the applicable law has . . . evolved between the time of trial and the disposition of the appeal,” id. (quoting Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Zaidi v. Shahgreen1 sentence2021See Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 506 ; Sloane v. Goldberg B’Nai B’Rith Towers, 577 S.W.3d 608, 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); see also Zaidi v. Shah, 502 S.W.3d 434, 446 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (appellate courts may not generally grant greater relief than requested). | 1 | 1 |
Boyles v. Kerrgreen2 sentences2021We have remanded cases in the interest of justice before when “one or more parties ‘proceeded under the wrong legal theory,’” USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 521 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 603 (Tex. 1993)), when “the applicable law has . . . evolved between the time of trial and the disposition of the appeal,” id. (quoting Nat. 2021We have remanded cases in the interest of justice before when “one or more parties ‘proceeded under the wrong legal theory,’” USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 521 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 603 (Tex. 1993)), when “the applicable law has . . . evolved between the time of trial and the disposition of the appeal,” id. (quoting Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Rohrmoos Venture, Eric Langford, Dan Basso, and Tobin Grove v. Utsw DVA Healthcare, Llpgreen1 sentence2021See Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 506 ; Sloane v. Goldberg B’Nai B’Rith Towers, 577 S.W.3d 608, 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.); see also Zaidi v. Shah, 502 S.W.3d 434, 446 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (appellate courts may not generally grant greater relief than requested). | 1 | 1 |
DeLeon v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See DeLeon, 322 S.W.3d at 386 ; Hagens v. State, 979 S.W.2d 788, 792 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (“If the error occurred at the punishment phase of the trial, the conviction is retained, but the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new punishment hearing;”)- ' ■ . 2016See DeLeon, 322 S.W.3d at 386 ; Hagens v. State, 979 S.W.2d 788, 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d) (“If the error occurred at the punishment phase of the trial, the conviction is retained, but the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new punishment hearing.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hagens v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See DeLeon, 322 S.W.3d at 386 ; Hagens v. State, 979 S.W.2d 788, 792 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (“If the error occurred at the punishment phase of the trial, the conviction is retained, but the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new punishment hearing;”)- ' ■ . 2016See DeLeon, 322 S.W.3d at 386 ; Hagens v. State, 979 S.W.2d 788, 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d) (“If the error occurred at the punishment phase of the trial, the conviction is retained, but the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new punishment hearing.”). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014App. 1998) (“If it is not clear . . . what ‘the fruits’ are, then the appellate court need not address the merits of the claim.”); see also Johnson v. State, 548 S.W.2d 700, 706 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Burns argues only that this court should “remand . . . this case for a new hearing on punishment, with only legitimate evidence.” See Gonzales v. State, 966 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
In Re NLDgreen2 sentences2013See In re N.L.D., 344 S.W.3d 33 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.). 2013See In re N.L.D., 344 S.W.3d 33 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2011, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Mayer v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2010); Mayer v. State , 274 S.W.3d 898, 901 ( Tex.App .ÂAmarillo 2008), affÂd , 309 S.W.3d 552 ( Tex.Crim.App . 2010). Â In Mayer , after determining that there was no evidence to support the order to pay attorney fees, we ordered the fees stricken from the judgment. Â Id . at 902. Â The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the decision to strike the offending attorney fees from the judgment rather than remanding the case for a new hearing on punishment. Â Mayer , 309 S.W.3d at 557 . Â Accordingly, we sustain appellantÂs sixth issue and order that the requ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Id; but see, Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813-14 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that there will generally be insufficient evidence on direct appeal for an appellate court to make the necessary findings to sustain this type of argument).1 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays, because he received ineffective assistance during the punishment phase of his trial, that the 1 Additionally, the Court has before it in Browning v. State, 12-14-00179-CR, an almost identical argument made by the same prosecutor. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayer v. State
green
2 sentences2009Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2010); Mayer v. State , 274 S.W.3d 898, 901 ( Tex.App .ÂAmarillo 2008), affÂd , 309 S.W.3d 552 ( Tex.Crim.App . 2010). Â In Mayer , after determining that there was no evidence to support the order to pay attorney fees, we ordered the fees stricken from the judgment. Â Id . at 902. Â The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the decision to strike the offending attorney fees from the judgment rather than remanding the case for a new hearing on punishment. Â Mayer , 309 S.W.3d at 557 . Â Accordingly, we sustain appellantÂs sixth issue and order that the requ 2009Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2010); Mayer v. State , 274 S.W.3d 898, 901 ( Tex.App .ÂAmarillo 2008), affÂd , 309 S.W.3d 552 ( Tex.Crim.App . 2010). Â In Mayer , after determining that there was no evidence to support the order to pay attorney fees, we ordered the fees stricken from the judgment. Â Id . at 902. Â The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the decision to strike the offending attorney fees from the judgment rather than remanding the case for a new hearing on punishment. Â Mayer , 309 S.W.3d at 557 . Â Accordingly, we sustain appellantÂs sixth issue and order that the requ | 5 | 2009–2011 |
McQuarrie v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 155 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hebert v. State
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 255 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Handspur v. State
green
1 sentence1991Handspur v. State, 792 S.W.2d 239 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Ullmen v. Department of Registration & Education
green
2 sentences1983Crank cites the case of Ullmen v. Dept. of Registration and Education, 67 Ill.App.3d 519 , 24 Ill.Dec. 291 , 385 N.E.2d 58 (1978), wherein an emergency situation left plaintiff without counsel at a hearing and the reviewing court held that the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion and reversed and remanded the case for a new hearing. 1983Crank cites the case of Ullmen v. Dept. of Registration and Education, 67 Ill.App.3d 519 , 24 Ill.Dec. 291 , 385 N.E.2d 58 (1978), wherein an emergency situation left plaintiff without counsel at a hearing and the reviewing court held that the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion and reversed and remanded the case for a new hearing. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
In Re King's Estate
green
2 sentences1966In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660 . 1966In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.