120 Texas opinions name it 5 courts 1978–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Royster v. Stategreen2 sentences1997In Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim.App.1981), a plurality of this Court held on rehearing that, in determining whether a charge on a lesser included offense is required, a two step analysis is to be used. 1997In Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Crim.App.1981), a plurality of this Court held on rehearing that, in determining whether a charge on a lesser included offense is required, a two step analysis is to be used. | 6 | 18 |
Rice v. Stategreen2 sentences2013A. Standard of Review The determination of whether the trial court should give a lesser-included offense instruction requested by a defendant requires a two step analysis: “(1) Is the requested charge for a lesser-included offense of the charged offense? (2) Is there trial evidence that supports giving the instruction to the jury?” Rice v. State, 333 S.W.3d 140, 144 (Tex. Crim. 2013A. Standard of Review The determination of whether the trial court should give a lesser-included offense instruction requested by a defendant requires a two step analysis: “(1) Is the requested charge for a lesser-included offense of the charged offense? (2) Is there trial evidence that supports giving the instruction to the jury?” Rice v. State, 333 S.W.3d 140, 144 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Rousseau v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Sweed v. State, 351 S.W.3d 63, 67-68 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (citing 22 Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981) (plurality op. on reh'g)). 2000Forest v. State, 989 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). | 2 | 2 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Hall v. State , 225 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. Crim. 2008Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Aguilar v. Stategreen2 sentences1997First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. [4] Secondly, there must be some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser offense. [5] In Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), a majority of this Court adopted the two-prong Royster test. 1985See Aguilar, supra; Wallace v. State, 679 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Parr v. State, 658 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Denison v. State, 651 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Daniels v. State, 633 S.W.2d 899 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); McKinney v. State, 627 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (Opinion on rehearing); Bravo v. State, 627 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Johnson v. State, 623 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Tax Comm'n of Miss.green2 sentences1983The Court distinguished United States v. State of Texas from the Castlewood type of Twenty-first Amendment case by categorizing United States v. State of Texas within a class of cases that included Collins v. Yosemite Park and Curry Company, 304 U.S. 518 , (1938); United States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363 , (1973); and United States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, 421 U.S. 599 , (1975) ("Tax Commission II"). 1983The Court distinguished United States v. State of Texas from the Castlewood type of Twenty-first Amendment case by categorizing United States v. State of Texas-within a class of cases ihat included Colliru v. Yosemite PLL ark and ~~ Currv Company, 304 U.S. 518 , (1938); Unitec States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, ~~~~~ 412 U.S. 363 , (1973); United States v. Tax Commission c,f Mississippi, 421 U.S. 599 , (1975) ("Tax Commission II"). | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2019Standard of Review and Applicable Law Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are evaluated under the two step analysis articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2019Standard of Review and Applicable Law Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are evaluated under the two step analysis articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 1 | 55 |
Barley v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Barley, 906 S.W.2d at 34 . 19 very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. 2010Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384 ; Barley, 906 S.W.2d at 33 . | 1 | 4 |
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.green2 sentences2007Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 , 102 S.Ct. 1148 , 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). 2007Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 , 102 S.Ct. 1148 , 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). | 1 | 2 |
City of Westworth Village, Texas v. City of White Settlement, Texasgreen1 sentence2026Determining whether a municipality is immune from a given cause of action is a two- step analysis: we “first determine whether the subject matter of the suit stems from a proprietary or a governmental function of the municipality,” and then, if “the action arose out of the municipality’s performance of a governmental function, immunity applies [unless] overcome by a [plaintiff’s] establishing a valid waiver.” Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 489 S.W.3d 448 , 451–52 & n.3 (Tex. 2016); see City of Westworth Vill. v. City of White Settlement, 558 S.W.3d 232, 241 (T | 1 | 1 |
Burtch v. Burtchgreen1 sentence2025Under section 7.007 of the Texas Family Code, when evaluating a reimbursement claim, the trial court must apply a two- step analysis using equitable principles: (1) examine all circumstances of the spouses to determine whether to recognize a reimbursement claim, and (2) if reimbursement is warranted, to order a division of the claim, if appropriate, in a just and right manner with 4 See Burtch v. Burtch, 972 S.W.2d 882, 888 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). 7 due regard for both parties’ rights. | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2020Law Related to In-Court Identification After Impermissibly Suggestive Pretrial Identification Procedures “We have previously held that ‘[a] pretrial identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification that subsequent use of that identification at trial would deny the accused due process of law.’” Kelly, 529 S.W.3d at 511 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 294 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 326 (1987)). “[D] 2020Law Related to In-Court Identification After Impermissibly Suggestive Pretrial Identification Procedures “We have previously held that ‘[a] pretrial identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification that subsequent use of that identification at trial would deny the accused due process of law.’” Kelly, 529 S.W.3d at 511 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 294 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 326 (1987)). “[D] | 1 | 1 |
Mayfield v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Law Related to In-Court Identification After Impermissibly Suggestive Pretrial Identification Procedures “We have previously held that ‘[a] pretrial identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification that subsequent use of that identification at trial would deny the accused due process of law.’” Kelly, 529 S.W.3d at 511 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 294 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 326 (1987)). “[D] | 1 | 1 |
| Stovall v. Dennogreen | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Law Related to In-Court Identification After Impermissibly Suggestive Pretrial Identification Procedures “We have previously held that ‘[a] pretrial identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification that subsequent use of that identification at trial would deny the accused due process of law.’” Kelly, 529 S.W.3d at 511 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 294 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 326 (1987)). “[D] | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Law Related to In-Court Identification After Impermissibly Suggestive Pretrial Identification Procedures “We have previously held that ‘[a] pretrial identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification that subsequent use of that identification at trial would deny the accused due process of law.’” Kelly, 529 S.W.3d at 511 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 294 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 326 (1987)). “[D] | 1 | 1 |
Balderas v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“The defendant has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the pretrial procedure was impermissibly suggestive.” Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 792 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Safian v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of Texas v. Meru, Markgreen | 1 | 1 |
| SWEED v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Mortongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goad, Joshua Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hall v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barrios v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Almanza v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leibman v. Grandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Houston v. Petroleum Traders Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Forest v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McFarland v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vasquez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sansone v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lopez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCartney v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Law Related to In-Court Identification After Impermissibly Suggestive Pretrial Identification Procedures “We have previously held that ‘[a] pretrial identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification that subsequent use of that identification at trial would deny the accused due process of law.’” Kelly, 529 S.W.3d at 511 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. ref’d) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 294 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 326 (1987)). “[D] 1987As appellant notes, Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968) requires a two step analysis to determine the admissibility of the in-court identification: 1. | 7 | 1987–2025 |
State v. Zuniga
green
2 sentences2025Zuniga, 512 S.W.3d at 907 . 2025Zuniga, 512 S.W.3d at 907 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Rogers v. State
green
2 sentences2016Rogers, 853 S.W.2d at 32-33 . 2016Rogers, 853 S.W.2d at 32-33 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Washington v. State
green
2 sentences2015Washington v. State, 930 S.W.2d 695 , 698 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1996, no pet.). 2008Washington v. State , 930 S.W.2d 695 , 698 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1996, no pet.). | 2 | 2008–2015 |
Godsey v. State
green
2 sentences1987In Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Cr.App.1986), at 584, we set forth the rule for determining whether a charge on a lesser included offense should have been given: “The two step analysis ... requires first, that the lesser included offense be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged; and second, there must be some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser offense. 1987In Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Cr.App.1986), at 584, we set forth the rule for determining whether a charge on a lesser included offense should have been given: "The two step analysis ... requires first, that the lesser included offense be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged; and second, there must be some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser offense. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.
green
2 sentences1983The Court distinguished United States v. State of Texas from the Castlewood type of Twenty-first Amendment case by categorizing United States v. State of Texas within a class of cases that included Collins v. Yosemite Park and Curry Company, 304 U.S. 518 , (1938); United States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363 , (1973); and United States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, 421 U.S. 599 , (1975) ("Tax Commission II"). 1983The Court distinguished United States v. State of Texas from the Castlewood type of Twenty-first Amendment case by categorizing United States v. State of Texas-within a class of cases ihat included Colliru v. Yosemite PLL ark and ~~ Currv Company, 304 U.S. 518 , (1938); Unitec States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, ~~~~~ 412 U.S. 363 , (1973); United States v. Tax Commission c,f Mississippi, 421 U.S. 599 , (1975) ("Tax Commission II"). | 2 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1983The Court distinguished United States v. State of Texas from the Castlewood type of Twenty-first Amendment case by categorizing United States v. State of Texas within a class of cases that included Collins v. Yosemite Park and Curry Company, 304 U.S. 518 , (1938); United States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363 , (1973); and United States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, 421 U.S. 599 , (1975) ("Tax Commission II"). 1983The Court distinguished United States v. State of Texas from the Castlewood type of Twenty-first Amendment case by categorizing United States v. State of Texas-within a class of cases ihat included Colliru v. Yosemite PLL ark and ~~ Currv Company, 304 U.S. 518 , (1938); Unitec States v. Tax Commission of Mississippi, ~~~~~ 412 U.S. 363 , (1973); United States v. Tax Commission c,f Mississippi, 421 U.S. 599 , (1975) ("Tax Commission II"). | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences1982See Watson v. State, supra (605 S.W.2d 877— Tex.Cr.App.1980); Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.).” In McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was written: “As the Practice Commentary notes, said § 19.04 is a blend of the old and the new, and cases decided under former Article 1257c, as enacted in 1927, and those decided earlie 1981See Watson v. State, supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr. *447 App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Simpkins v. State
green
2 sentences1982See Watson v. State, supra (605 S.W.2d 877— Tex.Cr.App.1980); Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.).” In McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was written: “As the Practice Commentary notes, said § 19.04 is a blend of the old and the new, and cases decided under former Article 1257c, as enacted in 1927, and those decided earlie 1981See Watson v. State, supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr. | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences1982See Watson v. State, supra (605 S.W.2d 877— Tex.Cr.App.1980); Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.).” In McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was written: “As the Practice Commentary notes, said § 19.04 is a blend of the old and the new, and cases decided under former Article 1257c, as enacted in 1927, and those decided earlie 1981See Watson v. State, supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr. *447 App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Briceno v. State
green
2 sentences1982See Watson v. State, supra (605 S.W.2d 877— Tex.Cr.App.1980); Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.).” In McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was written: “As the Practice Commentary notes, said § 19.04 is a blend of the old and the new, and cases decided under former Article 1257c, as enacted in 1927, and those decided earlie 1981See Watson v. State, supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr. *447 App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1982See Watson v. State, supra (605 S.W.2d 877— Tex.Cr.App.1980); Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.).” In McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was written: “As the Practice Commentary notes, said § 19.04 is a blend of the old and the new, and cases decided under former Article 1257c, as enacted in 1927, and those decided earlie 1981See Watson v. State, supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr. *447 App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Wilder v. State
green
2 sentences1982See Watson v. State, supra (605 S.W.2d 877— Tex.Cr.App.1980); Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.).” In McCartney v. State, 542 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), it was written: “As the Practice Commentary notes, said § 19.04 is a blend of the old and the new, and cases decided under former Article 1257c, as enacted in 1927, and those decided earlie 1981See Watson v. State, supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr. *447 App.); Wilder v. State, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.); Wright v. State, 582 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.Cr.App.); Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.); Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.); Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of San Antonio Acting Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Texas
green
1 sentence2026Determining whether a municipality is immune from a given cause of action is a two- step analysis: we “first determine whether the subject matter of the suit stems from a proprietary or a governmental function of the municipality,” and then, if “the action arose out of the municipality’s performance of a governmental function, immunity applies [unless] overcome by a [plaintiff’s] establishing a valid waiver.” Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 489 S.W.3d 448 , 451–52 & n.3 (Tex. 2016); see City of Westworth Vill. v. City of White Settlement, 558 S.W.3d 232, 241 (T | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| S.D.W., Matter Of green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Matter of SDW green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Reynolds v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Routier v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Gonzales v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Barbernell green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Ethio Express Shuttle Service, Inc. v. City of Houston green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Murphy v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Hudson v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Cantu v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Marquez v. Texas green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Green v. Rembert green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. McCollum green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Daniels v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Denison v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Parr v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Wallace v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| McKinney v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Bravo v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Todd v. State green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Salinas v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Castaneda v. Partida green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.