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 1996–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rhodes v. Cahillgreen2 sentences2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . 2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . | 3 | 3 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Walter, 28 S.W.3d at (seizure of marijuana, observed in plain view during traffic stop, did not violate Fourth Amendment); Hill, 303 S.W.3d at 874 (seizure of cocaine, observed in plain view during traffic stop, did not implicate Fourth Amendment). 2014See Walter, 28 S.W.3d at (seizure of marijuana, observed in plain view during traffic stop, did not violate Fourth Amendment); Hill, 303 S.W.3d at 874 (seizure of cocaine, observed in plain view during traffic stop, did not implicate Fourth Amendment). | 2 | 2 |
Padilla v. NCJ Development, Inc.green1 sentence2019See Padilla, 218 S.W.3d at 815 . | 1 | 1 |
Brookshire Brothers, Inc. v. Smithgreen1 sentence2015See Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Smith, 176 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (motion for en banc reconsideration becomes *78 moot when panel issues new opinion and judgment). 4 However, our disposition remains the same as we deny Mendoza’s mandamus petition. | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426 ; see also Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Montanez v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See TEX.R.APP.P. -2- 33.1(a)(2)(A); Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101, 104-05 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)(concluding that trial judge implicitly overruled defendant’s motion to suppress even though there was no written order denying motion). | 1 | 1 |
Giesberg v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Giesberg v. State, 945 S.W.2d 120 , 131 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997), aff’d, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Giesberg v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Giesberg v. State, 945 S.W.2d 120 , 131 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997), aff’d, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Phelps v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 519 . | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Mendoza was charged with murder for stabbing a friend after a night of drinking and cocaine use.42 Mendoza admitted to the offense, but claimed he acted in self defense.43 Over Mendoza’s objection, the jury was charged on provocation as a limitation to Mendoza’s self-defense claim. 44 The court of 39 See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Bennett v. State, 235 S.W.3d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Matlock, Marcus Dewaynegreen2 sentences2013See id. 2013See id. at 670 . | 1 | 1 |
Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v. Corporate Communicators, Inc.green2 sentences2008Champion v. Twelfth Court of Appeals , 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding); see Methodist Hosps. of Dallas v. Corporate Commc'ns, Inc ., 806 S.W.2d 879, 883 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied). 2008Champion v. Twelfth Court of Appeals , 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding); see Methodist Hosps. of Dallas v. Corporate Commc'ns, Inc ., 806 S.W.2d 879, 883 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Champion International Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appealsgreen1 sentence2008Champion v. Twelfth Court of Appeals , 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding); see Methodist Hosps. of Dallas v. Corporate Commc'ns, Inc ., 806 S.W.2d 879, 883 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Mendoza v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.green2 sentences2007See id. 2007See id. | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.) (citing Price v. State, 818 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991), rev’d, 826 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.) (citing Price v. State, 818 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991), rev’d, 826 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). 1996Id. at 948. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. McDonnold
green
2 sentences2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . 2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
McDonnold v. Weinacht
green
2 sentences2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . 2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
Mohnke v. Greenwood
green
2 sentences2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . 2010See Rhodes, 802 S.W.2d at 646 ; Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d at 142 ; Martin, 247 S.W.3d at 235 ; Mohnke, 915 S.W.2d at 593 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
Ex Parte Valdez
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Roberts v. State
green
1 sentence2022Mendoza’s claim that the outcome of his case could have been different had an expert been appointed is conclusory because there is no evidence in the record establishing what an expert would have testified to, or how said testimony would have been beneficial to Mendoza’s case. 3 This motion was ordered unsealed by the trial court for purposes of this appeal. 4 This competency evaluation concluded that Mendoza was competent to stand trial. 14 The record is silent as to the reasons why Mendoza’s trial counsel did not further investigate whether Mendoza was temporarily insane due to voluntary int | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Griffin v. Superior Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2016Contra id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2014Id. (“Presumably the trial judge will then deny the motion to suppress if she accepts Officer Davila’s version of the facts because the court of appeals correctly set out the applicable legal principles. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Mendoza v. State
green
2 sentences2013App. 2010). 40 Reeves, 2012 WL 5544770 at *6. 41 349 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. ref’d). 42 Id. at 275–76. 43 Id. at 276–77. 44 Id. at 274 . 2013App. 2010). 40 Reeves, 2012 WL 5544770 at *6. 41 349 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. ref’d). 42 Id. at 275–76. 43 Id. at 276–77. 44 Id. at 274 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Price v. State
green
1 sentence1996Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.) (citing Price v. State, 818 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991), rev’d, 826 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.