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.
17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re JGgreen1 sentence2014Cf. In re J.G., 301 S.W.3d at 380-81 (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to habitual-residence determination). | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Webb v. State, 232 S.W.3d 109, 112 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters Leaguegreen1 sentence2010See Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Tex.1990) (generally, an attorney’s fees award rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion). | 1 | 1 |
Ramos v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 417-18 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs v. Dobreigreen1 sentence2009Jacobs v. Dobrei, 991 S.W.2d 462, 463 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Niskar v. Niskargreen1 sentence2008Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Zuliani v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Mentis v. Barnardgreen1 sentence2007Mentis v. Barnard, 870 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2005Walker, 111 S.W.3d at 62. | 1 | 1 |
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahrgreen1 sentence2005Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Ash v. Hack Branch Distributing Co., Inc.green1 sentence2004Ash v. Hack Branch Distributing Co., Inc., 54 S.W.3d 401, 409 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Ortiz v. State, 834 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (citing Goode, supra, § 702.2); Pina, 38 S.W.3d at 736 ; Bisby, 907 S.W.2d at 952-53 ; accord Gordon, 778 F.2d at 1400 (“The court abused its discretion in insisting that Gor *196 don use either the word ‘swear’ or ‘affirm’ in light of Gordon’s sincere religious objections.”). | 1 | 1 |
Pierre v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Pierre v. State, 2 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
George K. Gordon v. The State of Idahogreen1 sentence2002See Ortiz v. State, 834 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (citing Goode, supra, § 702.2); Pina, 38 S.W.3d at 736 ; Bisby, 907 S.W.2d at 952-53 ; accord Gordon, 778 F.2d at 1400 (“The court abused its discretion in insisting that Gor *196 don use either the word ‘swear’ or ‘affirm’ in light of Gordon’s sincere religious objections.”). | 1 | 1 |
Guzman v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Pierre v. State, 2 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Bevil v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1998Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex.1957). 1998Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex.1957). | 1 | 1 |
Holloway v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Holloway v. State, 751 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robbins v. State
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pina v. State
green
1 sentence2002See Ortiz v. State, 834 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (citing Goode, supra, § 702.2); Pina, 38 S.W.3d at 736 ; Bisby, 907 S.W.2d at 952-53 ; accord Gordon, 778 F.2d at 1400 (“The court abused its discretion in insisting that Gor *196 don use either the word ‘swear’ or ‘affirm’ in light of Gordon’s sincere religious objections.”). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bisby v. State
green
1 sentence2002See Ortiz v. State, 834 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (citing Goode, supra, § 702.2); Pina, 38 S.W.3d at 736 ; Bisby, 907 S.W.2d at 952-53 ; accord Gordon, 778 F.2d at 1400 (“The court abused its discretion in insisting that Gor *196 don use either the word ‘swear’ or ‘affirm’ in light of Gordon’s sincere religious objections.”). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
green
1 sentence2002Our opinion in Joiner makes clear that a court of appeals is to apply an abuse-of-diseretion standard when it “review[s] a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony.” 522 U.S. at 138-139, 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 L.Edüd 508. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.