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 1990–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boerschig v. SOUTHWESTERN HOLDINGS, INC.green2 sentences2013The ten-year requirement may be established by tacking successive interests if there is “ ‘privity of estate between each holder and his successor.’ ” Boer-schig v. Southwestern Holdings, Inc., 322 S.W.3d 752, 756 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010, no pet.) (quoting Tex. Civ. 2013The ten-year requirement may be established by tacking successive interests if there is “‘privity of estate between each holder and his successor.’” Boerschig v. Southwestern Holdings, Inc., 322 S.W.3d 752, 756 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.) (quoting TEX. | 4 | 4 |
McAnally v. Texas Co.green2 sentences2004McAnally v. Tex. Co. , 124 Tex. 196 , 76 S.W.2d 997, 1001 (1934). 2: Mike Perkins testified that he also used the disputed property for hunting and general exploration; however, the record does not support this assertion. 2004McAnally v. Tex. Co. , 124 Tex. 196 , 76 S.W.2d 997, 1001 (1934). 2: Mike Perkins testified that he also used the disputed property for hunting and general exploration; however, the record does not support this assertion. | 3 | 3 |
Uriega v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See id. at 260-61 . 2010See id. at 260 ("Under the pre-2001 version of § 49.09(e), the proper approach was to "look back" ten years from the date of the primary DWI offense to determine whether an intervening DWI conviction had occurred since the remote DWI conviction."). | 2 | 2 |
Mastin v. Mastingreen2 sentences2002See Mastin v. Mastin, 70 S.W.3d 148, 154 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (finding trial by consent based on parties' arguments). 2002See Mastin v. Mastin, 70 S.W.3d 148, 154 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (finding trial by consent based on parties’ arguments). | 2 | 2 |
Getts v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Court of Criminal Appeals recently interpreted and applied the ten-year rule in Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153, 155-56 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). 2006The Court of Criminal Appeals recently interpreted and applied the ten-year rule in Getts v. State , 155 S.W.3d 153 , 155 B 56 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
McClendon v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In McClendon v. State, 509 S.W.2d 851, 853-54 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (op. on rehr’g.), we observed that typically, “where a prior felony conviction has been used for impeachment, it has been held remote if the time of one’s discharge from such conviction is more than ten years.” We also noted that the ten-year rule is not always followed, as each case must rest upon its own circumstances. 2015Id. at 854 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bobby Doyle Getts v. State
green
2 sentences2004Getts, 2003 WL 22456104, at *2 , at ___. 2004Getts, 2003 WL 22456104, at *2 , at --. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Ex Parte Serrato
green
1 sentence2010Bailey appears to interpret this language to mean that convictions that occurred prior to September 1, 1994, are not considered “final convictions” for enhancement purposes and therefore cannot be used for enhancement.3 The court of criminal appeals addressed a similar argument in Ex parte Serrato, 3 S.W.3d 41 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Crank v. State
green
1 sentence1990In Crank , the court concluded, in reviewing the trial court’s admission of an extraneous offense: “The analysis is for the trial judge in the first instance and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, his decision will not be disturbed on appeal.” Crank, 761 S.W.2d at 342 . 2 Under Rule 609(b), the proponent of the admission of a prior conviction that exceeds the ten year rule must persuade the trial court, “in the interest of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its preju *155 dicial effect.” TEX.R.CRIM.P. 609( | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.