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 1998–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garrett v. Stategreen2 sentences2025App. 1984), and appellate courts review the evidence presented during the hearing in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. 2025App. 1984), and appellate courts review the evidence presented during the hearing in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. | 7 | 7 |
Starr County v. Starr Industrial Services, Inc.green2 sentences2006GM/Munday also cite Starr County v. Starr Industrial Services, Inc., in which this Court determined that it was arbitrary and capricious for an agency to consider, after the hearing, a factor outside the statutory criteria. 584 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex. Civ. 2006The Board determined, based on the evidence presented during the hearing process, that Landmark had the more convincing experts and more appropriate methodology to evaluate the statutory good cause factors for the Houston market during the time in question. *439 GM/Munday also cite Starr County v. Starr Industrial Services, Inc., in which this Court determined that it was arbitrary and capricious for an agency to consider, after the hearing, a factor outside the statutory criteria. 584 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 3 | 3 |
Freeman v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Freeman, 167 S.W.3d at 120 ; Conrad, 77 S.W.3d at 426-27 . *917 Establishing that prejudice occurred during the sentencing phase of a non-capital case where the sentencing authority has broad discretion is a field of law with little guiding precedent. 20 The United States Supreme Court cases addressing Strickland prejudice during sentencing involve either death penalty cases or cases decided under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. 2015See Freeman, 167 S.W.3d at 120 ; Conrad, 77 S.W.3d at 426-27 . | 2 | 2 |
Moreno v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Moreno v. State, 900 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); see also In re SJ., 940 S.W.2d 332, 337-38 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bennett v. State, 705 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, no pet.) (plurality op.). 1998See Moreno v. State, 900 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); see also In re SJ., 940 S.W.2d 332, 337-38 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bennett v. State, 705 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, no pet.) (plurality op.). | 2 | 2 |
Bennett v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Moreno v. State, 900 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); see also In re SJ., 940 S.W.2d 332, 337-38 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bennett v. State, 705 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, no pet.) (plurality op.). 1998See Moreno v. State, 900 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); see also In re SJ., 940 S.W.2d 332, 337-38 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bennett v. State, 705 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, no pet.) (plurality op.). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of SJgreen2 sentences1998See Moreno v. State, 900 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); see also In re SJ., 940 S.W.2d 332, 337-38 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bennett v. State, 705 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, no pet.) (plurality op.). 1998See Moreno v. State, 900 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); see also In re SJ., 940 S.W.2d 332, 337-38 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bennett v. State, 705 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, no pet.) (plurality op.). | 2 | 2 |
Hacker, Anthony Waynegreen1 sentence2024See Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garcia-Cantugreen1 sentence2023See Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 241 ; Maxwell, 73 S.W.3d at 281 . | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of K.D.H., a Childgreen1 sentence2017See 426 S.W.3d at 887 (holding that trial court must “determine whether the evidence submitted regarding the standing issue, considered in the light most favorable to the petitioner, would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to find that the order requested is necessary because the child’s present circumstances would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development”). | 1 | 1 |
Brumit v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Terrill v. State, No. 04-14-00571-CR, 2015 WL 4116005 , at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 8, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645 (distinguishing Jefferson on grounds that trial court’s statements in Jefferson demonstrated that trial court “had not considered a lower sentence within the range of punishment” and that trial court “did not consider any evidence when 9 imposing its sentence”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Conrad v. State
green
2 sentences2015See Freeman, 167 S.W.3d at 120 ; Conrad, 77 S.W.3d at 426-27 . *917 Establishing that prejudice occurred during the sentencing phase of a non-capital case where the sentencing authority has broad discretion is a field of law with little guiding precedent. 20 The United States Supreme Court cases addressing Strickland prejudice during sentencing involve either death penalty cases or cases decided under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. 2015See Freeman, 167 S.W.3d at 120 ; Conrad, 77 S.W.3d at 426-27 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Maxwell v. State
green
1 sentence2023See Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d at 241 ; Maxwell, 73 S.W.3d at 281 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hood v. State
green
1 sentence2021After considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence presented during the hearing, “the trial court was entitled to believe” the State’s explanation regarding why the additional charges were filed and to conclude that the objective explanation was unrelated to Gonzales’s decision to exercise his right to appeal and was, “therefore, sufficient to rebut a presumption of vindictiveness.” See Hood, 185 S.W.3d at 448 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.