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 1994–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Dvgreen2 sentences2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) (‘When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies.”); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). 2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) ("When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies."); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). | 6 | 6 |
Matter of Cpgreen2 sentences2004See In re C.P., 925 S.W.2d at 152 . 2004See In re C.P., 925 S.W.2d at 152 . | 6 | 6 |
Matter of KWGgreen2 sentences2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) (‘When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies.”); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). 2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) ("When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies."); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). | 4 | 4 |
In Re LRgreen2 sentences2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) (‘When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies.”); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). 2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) ("When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies."); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). | 4 | 4 |
In the Interest of D.Z.green2 sentences2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) (‘When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies.”); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). 2004P. 44.1, 44.2; In re D.V., 955 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) ("When the State proceeds with determinate sentencing, the criminal-harm analysis applies, but when the State proceeds with indeterminate sentencing, the civil-harm analysis applies."); In re D.Z., 869 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also In re L.R., 84 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); In re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied). | 4 | 4 |
In Re MPgreen2 sentences2012See In re L.D.C., 357 S.W.3d at 131-32 , 132 n. 2 (stating, “Neither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Texas Family Code provide clear guidance as to whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for juvenile jury charge error,” and citing several opinions discussing the problem.); see also In the Matter of A.C., No. 11-09-00164-CV, 2011 WL 3925516 , at *6 (Tex.App.-Eastland Sept. 8, 2011, pet. denied)(recognizing the discrepancies between courts in choosing whether to apply civil or criminal rules to the harm analysis); In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d at 231-32 (noting disagree 2011See In re A.E.B., 255 S.W.3d 338, 350 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. dism‟d) (applying Almanza to jury charge error subject to timely objection); In re C.S., 79 S.W.3d 619, 621-22 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (same); In re E.F., 986 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied) (same); cf. In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d 228, 231-32 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (noting disagreement between the courts of appeals as to the proper harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile delinquency proceedings but holding that the court did not have to choose between a criminal and a civil har | 3 | 3 |
In Re Sggreen2 sentences2011See In re S.G., 304 S.W.3d at 521 . 2011See In re S.G., 304 S.W.3d at 521 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re CPgreen2 sentences2009See In re C.P., 998 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.). 2009See In re C.P., 998 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Francis v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Francis, 36 S.W.3d at 125 ; cf. Crown Life Ins. 2003See Francis, 36 S.W.3d at 125 ; cf. Crown Life Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of MRgreen2 sentences2003Harm Analysis Although the Rules of Civil Procedure govern jury charges in juvenile proceedings when not in conflict with the Texas Family Code, the courts of appeals differ about whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile cases. [4] See *232 Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 366; In the Matter of A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d at 555-56 ; In the Matter of P.L.W., 851 S.W.2d at 386 . 2003Harm Analysis Although the Rules of Civil Procedure govern jury charges in juvenile proceedings when not in conflict with the Texas Family Code, the courts of appeals differ about whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile cases. 4 See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 366; In the Matter of A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d at 555-56 ; In the Matter of P.L.W., 851 S.W.2d at 386 . | 2 | 2 |
Gao v. Stategreen2 sentences1997In re C.P., 925 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex.App.—Austin 1996, writ denied); see also In re G.A.O. v. State, 854 S.W.2d 710, 716, 718 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, no writ). 1997In re C.P., 925 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex.App.—Austin 1996, writ denied); see also In re G.A.O. v. State, 854 S.W.2d 710, 716, 718 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
In re L.D.C.green1 sentence2012See In re L.D.C., 357 S.W.3d at 131-32 , 132 n. 2 (stating, “Neither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Texas Family Code provide clear guidance as to whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for juvenile jury charge error,” and citing several opinions discussing the problem.); see also In the Matter of A.C., No. 11-09-00164-CV, 2011 WL 3925516 , at *6 (Tex.App.-Eastland Sept. 8, 2011, pet. denied)(recognizing the discrepancies between courts in choosing whether to apply civil or criminal rules to the harm analysis); In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d at 231-32 (noting disagree | 1 | 1 |
In Re CSgreen1 sentence2011See In re A.E.B., 255 S.W.3d 338, 350 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. dism‟d) (applying Almanza to jury charge error subject to timely objection); In re C.S., 79 S.W.3d 619, 621-22 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (same); In re E.F., 986 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied) (same); cf. In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d 228, 231-32 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (noting disagreement between the courts of appeals as to the proper harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile delinquency proceedings but holding that the court did not have to choose between a criminal and a civil har | 1 | 1 |
In Re AEBgreen1 sentence2011See In re A.E.B., 255 S.W.3d 338, 350 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. dism‟d) (applying Almanza to jury charge error subject to timely objection); In re C.S., 79 S.W.3d 619, 621-22 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (same); In re E.F., 986 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied) (same); cf. In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d 228, 231-32 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (noting disagreement between the courts of appeals as to the proper harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile delinquency proceedings but holding that the court did not have to choose between a criminal and a civil har | 1 | 1 |
In Re EFgreen1 sentence2011See In re A.E.B., 255 S.W.3d 338, 350 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. dism‟d) (applying Almanza to jury charge error subject to timely objection); In re C.S., 79 S.W.3d 619, 621-22 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (same); In re E.F., 986 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied) (same); cf. In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d 228, 231-32 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (noting disagreement between the courts of appeals as to the proper harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile delinquency proceedings but holding that the court did not have to choose between a criminal and a civil har | 1 | 1 |
Matter of SBCgreen2 sentences1994See In re S.B.C., 805 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1991, writ denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil harm standard); In re S.C., 790 S.W.2d 766, 777-778 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, writ *566 denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil and criminal harm standards). 1994See In re S.B.C., 805 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1991, writ denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil harm standard); In re S.C., 790 S.W.2d 766, 777-778 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil and criminal harm standards). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of SCgreen2 sentences1994See In re S.B.C., 805 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1991, writ denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil harm standard); In re S.C., 790 S.W.2d 766, 777-778 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, writ *566 denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil and criminal harm standards). 1994See In re S.B.C., 805 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1991, writ denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil harm standard); In re S.C., 790 S.W.2d 766, 777-778 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) (concluding error not harmful under civil and criminal harm standards). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re AAB
green
2 sentences2012However, the Waco court in In re A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.), applied a civil harm analysis to *453 charge error, thus disavowing their earlier opinion in In the Matter of M.E.R., 995 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.) in which they analyzed preservation of jury charge error under the Almanza standard. 3 See In re A.A.B., 110 S.W.Bd at 555-59; In re M.E.R., 995 S.W.2d at 291 . 2003Harm Analysis Although the Rules of Civil Procedure govern jury charges in juvenile proceedings when not in conflict with the Texas Family Code, the courts of appeals differ about whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile cases. 4 See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 366; In the Matter of A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d at 555-56 ; In the Matter of P.L.W., 851 S.W.2d at 386 . | 3 | 2003–2012 |
PLW v. State
green
2 sentences2003Harm Analysis Although the Rules of Civil Procedure govern jury charges in juvenile proceedings when not in conflict with the Texas Family Code, the courts of appeals differ about whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile cases. [4] See *232 Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 366; In the Matter of A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d at 555-56 ; In the Matter of P.L.W., 851 S.W.2d at 386 . 2003Harm Analysis Although the Rules of Civil Procedure govern jury charges in juvenile proceedings when not in conflict with the Texas Family Code, the courts of appeals differ about whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile cases. 4 See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 366; In the Matter of A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d at 555-56 ; In the Matter of P.L.W., 851 S.W.2d at 386 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
In Re MER
green
2 sentences2012However, the Waco court in In re A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.), applied a civil harm analysis to *453 charge error, thus disavowing their earlier opinion in In the Matter of M.E.R., 995 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.) in which they analyzed preservation of jury charge error under the Almanza standard. 3 See In re A.A.B., 110 S.W.Bd at 555-59; In re M.E.R., 995 S.W.2d at 291 . 2012However, the Waco court in In re A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.), applied a civil harm analysis to *453 charge error, thus disavowing their earlier opinion in In the Matter of M.E.R., 995 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.) in which they analyzed preservation of jury charge error under the Almanza standard. 3 See In re A.A.B., 110 S.W.Bd at 555-59; In re M.E.R., 995 S.W.2d at 291 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.