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.
18 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garciagreen2 sentences2009See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). 2009See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia , 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). | 4 | 4 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Brown v. State, 183 S.W.3d 728, 741 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d). 2010Brown v. State, 183 S.W.3d 728, 741 (Tex. App. - Houston [1[st] Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 3 |
Pelache v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Appellant declined the trial court’s offer to continue the punishment phase and said that he was “aware of them.” Under a due process analysis, the issue is whether a defendant “received sufficient notice of the enhancements so that he had an opportunity to prepare a defense to them.” Pelache v. State, 324 S.W.3d 568, 577 (Tex. Crim. 2015Appellant declined the trial court’s offer to continue the punishment phase and said that he was “aware of them.” Under a due process analysis, the issue is whether a defendant “received sufficient notice of the enhancements so that he had an opportunity to prepare a defense to them.” Pelache v. State, 324 S.W.3d 568, 577 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Villarrealgreen1 sentence2019See id. (denying requested mandamus relief based on speedy trial violation where nothing showed trial court had been made aware of or asked to rule on request for trial). | 1 | 1 |
Dinkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 347 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2011The trial court asked defense counsel this question during its exchange with specific request that is refused by the trial court”); Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65, 69-70 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cruz v. Stategreen1 sentence2010The only other veniremember who expressed disagreement with the law of parties and who was within the strike zone was questioned extensively on his opinion, ultimately agreed that he could follow the law, but did not sit on the jury for reasons not revealed by the record. 6: When the trial court asked if defense counsel had any comment to the State’s proffered reasons, defense counsel responded only that he was concerned with the State’s reasoning for veniremember 4. 7: Jackson emphasizes the State’s use of the word “I,” but “[w]hat determines the impermissibility of a reference to the defenda | 1 | 1 |
In Re Chavezgreen1 sentence2008See In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. C Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); O = Connor v. First Court of Appeals , 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
O'CONNOR v. First Court of Appealsgreen1 sentence2008See In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. C Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); O = Connor v. First Court of Appeals , 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
HE Butt Grocery Company v. Testergreen1 sentence1999See Madden v. State, 799 *498 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cherry v. Stategreen1 sentence2010App. 2007); but see Cherry v. State , 507 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eisen v. State
green
1 sentence2018After appellant testified, the trial court asked defense counsel if it had anything else to which counsel answered, “No, judge.” Thus, the record indicates appellant was given the opportunity to “speak in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed.” Eisen, 40 S.W.3d at 632 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Illinois v. Allen
green
2 sentences2018This indicates the trial court attempted to deal with appellant in a "constitutionally permissible way" by removing appellant from the courtroom "until he promises to conduct himself properly." See Allen , 397 U.S. at 343 -44 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . 2018This indicates the trial court attempted to deal with appellant in a "constitutionally permissible way" by removing appellant from the courtroom "until he promises to conduct himself properly." See Allen , 397 U.S. at 343 -44 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lincoln v. State
green
1 sentence2008He did not indicate either at that time, or any other time, “that these arrangements were unsatisfactory.” Lincoln, 999 S.W.2d at 809 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.