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 1987–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2021Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 21 (1967) (“We have no hesitation in saying that the right of these petitioners not to be punished for exercising their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be silent—expressly created by the Federal Constitution itself—is a federal right which, in the absence of appropriate congressional action, it is our responsibility to protect by fashioning the necessary rule.”).33 33 In Kooteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court discussed the origin of the federal harmless error rule, noting 32 Yet, creating such a burden is one thing; defining how the burden wor 1995The case most often cited for the formulation of the federal harmless error rule is Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 2 | 3 |
Carranza v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 657 (Tex. Crim . 2001Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 657 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). | 2 | 2 |
Belyeu v. Stategreen2 sentences1997In such a case, we apply the federal harmless error standard which is the equiva lent of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 81(b)(2). 1 Belyeu v. State, 791 S.W.2d 66, 75 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); see also Beathard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). 1993Belyeu v. State, 791 S.W.2d 66, 75 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). | 2 | 2 |
Mallory v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Mallory v. State , 752 S.W.2d 566, 569-70 (Tex. Crim. 1995Mallory v. State, 752 S.W.2d 566, 569-70 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). | 2 | 2 |
Kotteakos v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2000However, its citation and reliance upon Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct.1239, 1253, 90 L.Ed.2d 1557 (1946), in which the Supreme Court applied the federal harmless error statute to a variance between an indictment and the jury charge in a conspiracy trial renders the case applicable to the determination of whether a substantial right has been affected. 1998See Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 757 , 66 S.Ct. at 1243-44 (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 391 ). | 1 | 2 |
Barrera v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See id. | 1 | 1 |
Hinds v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d | 1 | 1 |
Matthews v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d | 1 | 1 |
Haney v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lanegreen2 sentences2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d 2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d | 1 | 1 |
Barrera v. Stategreen2 sentences1998The court of appeals agreed that the trial court erred, and then analyzed that error under the federal harmless error rule because “we do not apply Almanza ... if the error implicates rights flowing from the United States Constitution.” Barrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 153, 157 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1997). 1998The court of appeals agreed that the trial court erred, and then analyzed that error under the federal harmless error rule because "we do not apply Almanza ... if the error implicates rights flowing from the United States Constitution." Barrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 153, 157 (Tex.App.- Corpus Christi 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Beathard v. Stategreen1 sentence1997In such a case, we apply the federal harmless error standard which is the equiva lent of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 81(b)(2). 1 Belyeu v. State, 791 S.W.2d 66, 75 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); see also Beathard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Stategreen1 sentence1993We apply the harm analysis set forth in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171-72 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (opinion on rehearing), unless the error implicates rights flowing from the United States Constitution, in which case we apply the federal harmless error standard, the equivalent of Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(2). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Neder v. United States
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 8 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Howland v. State
green
1 sentence2000See e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 , 106 S.Ct. at 732 (misjoinder error held to be hamless in fight of overwhelming evidence of guilt); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (in fight of the overwhelming evidence of future dangerousness that was properly admitted, any error in admitting certain other evidence did not have a substantial or injurious influence on the jury’s decision); Matthews v. State, 979 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.) (admission of evidence of extraneous offense of assault was harmless in child abuse case, and did not effect d | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Fahy v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences1996The federal harmless error standard was established in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963): "Whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction," and the common law rule which placed on the beneficiary of the error the burden of proving that no injury was suffered as a result of the error. 1996The federal harmless error standard was established in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963): "Whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction," and the common law rule which placed on the beneficiary of the error the burden of proving that no injury was suffered as a result of the error. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Satterwhite v. Texas
green
2 sentences1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court’s original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court “for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).” The Supreme Court’s remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause “for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith.” In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court’s original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court “for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).” The Supreme Court’s remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause “for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith.” In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Parker v. State
green
2 sentences1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court’s original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court “for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).” The Supreme Court’s remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause “for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith.” In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court's original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court "for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. ___ , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988)." The Supreme Court's remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause "for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith . " In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
green
2 sentences1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court’s original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court “for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).” The Supreme Court’s remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause “for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith.” In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court's original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court "for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. ___ , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988)." The Supreme Court's remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause "for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith . " In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
James v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
green
2 sentences1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court’s original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court “for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).” The Supreme Court’s remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause “for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith.” In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989Without any analysis or any particular instructions, the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause vacated this Court's original judgment and remanded the cause to this Court "for further consideration in light of Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. ___ , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988)." The Supreme Court's remand order in this cause reads much like the one found in Parker v. Texas, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3134 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981), in which the Supreme Court remanded that cause "for further consideration in light of Estelle v. Smith . " In Parker v. State, 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Zant v. Stephens
green
2 sentences1987He then relies on Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 , 103 S.Ct. 2733 , 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983), to argue that a federal harmless error analysis cannot be used and, thus, his death sentence should.be vacated. 1987He then relies on Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 , 103 S.Ct. 2733 , 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983), to argue that a federal harmless error analysis cannot be used and, thus, his death sentence should.be vacated. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.