19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tompkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1992The court reasoned that, as to juror number 11, no prima facie showing of discrimination was made out by appellant and, further, that "an appellant can not do a comparison analysis or raise a claim of pretext for the first time on appeal," citing Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Cr.App. 1987). 1992Appellant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that footnote 6A in Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), precluded a comparison analysis between white venirepersons who were not struck and black venirepersons who were struck. | 5 | 8 |
Cornish v. Stategreen2 sentences2011In Young, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that “while a defendant is not required to request the trial court make a comparison analysis of the reasons given for striking various venirepersons in order to preserve the issue for an appellate determination, such defendant is limited to the evidence in the record to support such analysis.” Cornish v. State, 848 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc) (interpreting Young, 826 S.W.2d at 144 ). 2011In Young, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that "while a defendant is not required to request the trial court make a comparison analysis of the reasons given for striking various venirepersons in order to preserve the issue for an appellate determination, such defendant is limited to the evidence in the record to support such analysis." Cornish v. State, 848 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc) (interpreting Young, 826 S.W.2d at 144 ). | 2 | 3 |
Keeton v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 879 (Teague, J., concurring). 1990See Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 879 (Teague, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Young v. State
green
2 sentences2011In Young, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that “while a defendant is not required to request the trial court make a comparison analysis of the reasons given for striking various venirepersons in order to preserve the issue for an appellate determination, such defendant is limited to the evidence in the record to support such analysis.” Cornish v. State, 848 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc) (interpreting Young, 826 S.W.2d at 144 ). 2011In Young, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that "while a defendant is not required to request the trial court make a comparison analysis of the reasons given for striking various venirepersons in order to preserve the issue for an appellate determination, such defendant is limited to the evidence in the record to support such analysis." Cornish v. State, 848 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc) (interpreting Young, 826 S.W.2d at 144 ). | 4 | 1992–2011 |
Vargas v. State
green
2 sentences2003Vargas I, 838 S.W.2d at 557 . 1996In Vargas , the court stated that a defendant may rely on a comparative analysis of venirepersons on appeal and is not “required to request that the trial judge make his finding upon a comparison analysis nor is he obliged to offer in evidence testimony from jury selection supporting such an analysis.” Vargas, 838 S.W.2d at 556 . | 4 | 1996–2003 |
Whitsey v. State
green
1 sentence2023Williams “did not cross-examine the prosecutor or attempt to impeach the prosecutor through other evidence such as a comparison analysis of the peremptorily challenged white and black venirepersons.” Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707 , 723 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Jefferson Associates, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1995We believe the mandate of Prudential is to determine the validity of the “as is” agreement at issue in light of the sophistication of the parties, the terms of the “as is” agreement, and whether there was a knowing misrepresentation or concealment of a known fact. 3 A comparison of these factors in Prudential and this case, we believe, demonstrates the invalidity of the “as is” provision in the Smith-Levine earnest money contract as a matter of law: • Goldman was “a knowledgeable real estate investor who owned an interest in at least thirty commercial buildings,” the president of a commercial | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Henderson v. State
green
2 sentences1992Henderson, supra, at 788 S.W.2d 625 . 1992Henderson, supra, at 788 S.W.2d 625 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Prosper v. State
green
2 sentences1992Henderson, supra, at 788 S.W.2d 625 . 1992Henderson, supra, at 788 S.W.2d 625 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Southwestern Investment Company v. Neeley
green
1 sentence1975There is no finding of actual damages and we have no basis upon which to make the comparison required under the rule laid down in Neeley, supra. All of the cases mentioned above were actions in law and not in equity. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.