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 1952–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Primate Construction, Inc. v. Silvergreen2 sentences2010Non-Service of Process In issue one, Spiller argues that Boon failed to establish non-service of process because her testimony denying service is uncorroborated. “[S]trict compliance with the rules for service of citation [must] affirmatively appear on the record in order for a default judgment to withstand direct attack.” Primate Constr. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex.1994). 2010Non-Service of Process In issue one, Spiller argues that Boon failed to establish non-service of process because her testimony denying service is uncorroborated. “[S]trict compliance with the rules for service of citation [must] affirmatively appear on the record in order for a default judgment to withstand direct attack.” Primate Constr. v. Silver , 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994). “ There are no presumptions in favor of valid issuance, service, and return of citation.” Id . | 3 | 3 |
Lake v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Under such circumstances it is not error to convict for possession of drugs absent the physical presence of the drug itself, providing the drug has been analyzed and the chain of custody explicated.” Id. 1996However, the McBride court, citing Lake v. State, 577 S.W.2d 245, 246 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), noted that the right of inspection may be a qualified right when the evidence has been destroyed in the process of analysis. | 2 | 3 |
McBride v. Stategreen2 sentences2002The right to inspect evidence is qualified, however, “ “where the evidence is not available for inspection, such as when the evidence has been destroyed in the process of analysis.’ ” Bell v. State, 866 S.W.2d 284, 288 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (quoting McBride v. State, 838 S.W.2d 248 , 251 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). 1993The right to inspect evidence is qualified, however, in cases “where the evidence is not available for inspection such as when the evidence has been destroyed in the process of analysis.” 838 S.W.2d at 251 n. 6. | 1 | 3 |
City of Waco v. Texas Commission on Environmental Qualitygreen1 sentence2025Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781, 802 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) reversed on other grounds, City of Waco, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013). 19 But although the affected person factors for entitlement to an administrative contested case hearing are based on standing principles, “there are also key differences” in the process and in the factors for making this determination. | 1 | 1 |
Marin v. Stategreen1 sentence2024At common law, the right to be present at the beginning of trial in a felony case was unwaivable.16 Once trial had begun, a defendant could waive his right by voluntarily absenting himself from the proceedings17 or by acting in a disruptive manner that impeded the trial after being 12 Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Perkinsgreen1 sentence2015Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46, 47 (Ala.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Goffney v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Gaffney v. State, 843 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Harris County Appraisal Districtgreen1 sentence2007See id. § 1.111(e)(1); see also id. § 41.41(a)(1) (“A property owner is entitled to protest before the appraisal review board the ... determination of the appraised value of the owner’s property_”). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Stategreen1 sentence2002The right to inspect evidence is qualified, however, “ “where the evidence is not available for inspection, such as when the evidence has been destroyed in the process of analysis.’ ” Bell v. State, 866 S.W.2d 284, 288 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (quoting McBride v. State, 838 S.W.2d 248 , 251 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Chambers v. State, 903 S.W.2d 21, 31 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995) (holding that the trial court's exempting prospective jurors outside the presence of counsel or the defendant did not implicate the defendant's statutory right to be present at trial where the general assembly had not been assigned to any particular case at time of the exemption). 2000See Chambers v. State, 903 S.W.2d 21, 31 (Tex.Cr.App.1995) (holding that the trial court’s exempting prospective jurors outside the presence of counsel or the defendant did not implicate the defendant’s statutory right to be present at trial where the general assembly had not been assigned to any particular case at time of the exemption). | 1 | 1 |
Lindsay v. Papageorgiougreen1 sentence1990See Papageorgiou, 751 S.W.2d at 544 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. City of Waco
green
1 sentence2025Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781, 802 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) reversed on other grounds, City of Waco, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013). 19 But although the affected person factors for entitlement to an administrative contested case hearing are based on standing principles, “there are also key differences” in the process and in the factors for making this determination. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Trinova Corp. v. Department of Treasury
green
1 sentence2015On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court, in affirming on other grounds without addressing the Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment, expressed the amendment's retroactivity, expressed the view that (1) the view that (1) the court's conclusion that Michigan's single statutory relief provision applied only if necessary to save business tax was not facially discriminatory was the single business tax against unconstitutional sufficient to comply with the requirements of the application; (2) under the Federal Constitution's commerce clause; and (2) the single business tax did not commerce clause (Ar | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2015In an opinion by Kennedy, J., joined by single business tax--labor and capital--are fully realized Rehnquist, Ch. J., and White, Marshall, and O'Connor, and thus can be precisely quantified and geographically JJ., it was held that Michigan's value added, single assigned when the actual purchase of labor services and business tax, as applied to the Ohio corporation during use of capital occur, Michigan's apportionment of a 1980, did not violate either the commerce clause or the taxpayer's entire payroll and capital expenses resulted in due process clause, because (1) the corporation did not the 2015In an opinion by Kennedy, J., joined by single business tax--labor and capital--are fully realized Rehnquist, Ch. J., and White, Marshall, and O'Connor, and thus can be precisely quantified and geographically JJ., it was held that Michigan's value added, single assigned when the actual purchase of labor services and business tax, as applied to the Ohio corporation during use of capital occur, Michigan's apportionment of a 1980, did not violate either the commerce clause or the taxpayer's entire payroll and capital expenses resulted in due process clause, because (1) the corporation did not the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Flores v. State
green
2 sentences1980In Flores v. State, 576 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. Cr.App.1978), this Court held that “an attorney must acquaint himself ... with ... the facts of a case before he can render reasonably effective assistance of counsel.” Writing for the Court, Presiding Judge Onion set forth the factors to be considered in determining the size of defense counsel’s burden to become acquainted with the facts: ... 1980In Flores v. State, 576 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. Cr.App.1978), this Court held that "an attorney must acquaint himself ... with ... the facts of a case before he can render reasonably effective assistance of counsel." Writing for the Court, Presiding Judge Onion set forth the factors to be considered in determining the size of defense counsel's burden to become acquainted with the facts: ... | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Dallas Steam Laundry & Dye Works
green
2 sentences1952Co. v. Dallas Steam Laundry & Dye Works, Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 937 , syl. 4 writ ref.; Southland Life Ins. 1952Co. v. Dallas Steam Laundry & Dye Works, Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 937 , syl. 4 writ ref.; Southland Life Ins. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.