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 1999–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prystash v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (“The doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.”). 2019Therefore, “[t]he doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.” Id. at 531 . 18 party] to take advantage of his own wrong.” Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 644 (quoting Prystash, 3 S.W.3d at 531 ). | 9 | 14 |
Ex Parte Williamsgreen2 sentences2006As Justice Keller remarked in her concurring opinion in Williams : “estoppel [is] distinct from waiver and ‘is part of the definition of what can constitute error, and quite reasonably defines error of which a party may complain as excluding those actions of the trial court actually sought by the party to the tribunal.’ ” 65 S.W.3d at 658 (Keller, J„ concurring); see also Pry stash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (explaining in an erroneous jury charge case that there is “a crucial distinction between the rules of waiver and the law of invited error,” and that the doctrine of i 2006As Justice Keller remarked in her concurring opinion in Williams: "estoppel [is] distinct from waiver and `is part of the definition of what can constitute error, and quite reasonably defines error of which a party may complain as excluding those actions of the trial court actually sought by the party to the tribunal.'" 65 S.W.3d at 658 (Keller, J., concurring); see also Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (explaining in an erroneous jury charge case that there is "a crucial distinction between the rules of waiver and the law of invited error," and that the doctrine of inv | 2 | 2 |
Woodall v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“The law of invited error provides that a party cannot take advantage of an error that it invited or caused.” Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Willeford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) (“The court of criminal appeals has applied invited error when the defendant ‘invites’ the trial court to do something, the trial court does the act, and thereafter the defendant complains of the trial court’s action.”). 2019Therefore, “[t]he doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.” Id. at 531 . 18 party] to take advantage of his own wrong.” Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 644 (quoting Prystash, 3 S.W.3d at 531 ). | 1 | 2 |
Willeford v. Stategreen1 sentence2021“The law of invited error provides that a party cannot take advantage of an error that it invited or caused.” Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Willeford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) (“The court of criminal appeals has applied invited error when the defendant ‘invites’ the trial court to do something, the trial court does the act, and thereafter the defendant complains of the trial court’s action.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cadd v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Therefore, “[t]he doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.” Id. at 531 . 18 1988); Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Gutierrez v. State, 659 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Cadd v. State, 587 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Livingston v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Therefore, “[t]he doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.” Id. at 531 . 18 1988); Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Gutierrez v. State, 659 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Cadd v. State, 587 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Gutierrez v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Therefore, “[t]he doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.” Id. at 531 . 18 1988); Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Gutierrez v. State, 659 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Cadd v. State, 587 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Martinezgreen1 sentence2008See also Ex parte Hood, supra, at 677-78 . [44] See note 17, ante. [45] Ex parte Martinez, supra, at 324 . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Hoodgreen1 sentence2008See also Ex parte Hood, supra, at 677-78 . [44] See note 17, ante. [45] Ex parte Martinez, supra, at 324 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Prystash v. Texas
green
2 sentences2010“The doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.” Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 , 120 S.Ct. 1840 , 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). “[T]he law of invited error estops a party from making an appellate error of an action it induced.” Id. 2010“The doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.” Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 , 120 S.Ct. 1840 , 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). “[T]he law of invited error estops a party from making an appellate error of an action it induced.” Id. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Penry v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2008See Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, supra, at 1662 ("The trial judge refused to give any of several instructions requested by [Abdul-Kabir] that would have authorized a negative answer to either of the special issues on the basis of `any evidence which, in [the jury's] opinion, mitigated against the imposition of the Death Penalty, including any aspect of the Defendant's character or record.'") (quoting the Joint Appendix of the parties, at 115) (first brackets supplied; second brackets in the original). [42] See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) ("The doctrine of invited er 2008App. 1999) (“The doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel.”) 43 Penry II, supra, at 800; Smith I, supra, at 47-8 ; Smith II, supra, 127 S.Ct. at 1691. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Tucker v. State
green
1 sentence2019“Even if the [jury] charge is later found to be erroneous, the accused can not first invite error and then complain about it on appeal.” Tucker, 771 S.W.2d at 534 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cowans v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2010App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000). “[T]he law of invited error estops a party from making an appellate error of an action it induced.” Id. 2010App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000). “[T]he law of invited error estops a party from making an appellate error of an action it induced.” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Smith v. Texas
green
2 sentences2008See Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, supra, at 1662 ("The trial judge refused to give any of several instructions requested by [Abdul-Kabir] that would have authorized a negative answer to either of the special issues on the basis of `any evidence which, in [the jury's] opinion, mitigated against the imposition of the Death Penalty, including any aspect of the Defendant's character or record.'") (quoting the Joint Appendix of the parties, at 115) (first brackets supplied; second brackets in the original). [42] See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) ("The doctrine of invited er 2008Penry II, supra, at 800, 121 S.Ct. 1910 ; Smith I, supra, at 47-8 , 125 S.Ct. 400 ; Smith II, supra, 127 S.Ct. at 1691. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Carbough v. State
green
2 sentences1999This Court first pointed out the relationship between the doctrines of estoppel and invited error in jury charges in Carbough v. State, 49 Tex.Crim. 452, 455-56 , 93 S.W. 738 (1906): In the later case of M., K & T. 1999This Court first pointed out the relationship between the doctrines of estoppel and invited error in jury charges in Carbough v. State, 49 Tex.Crim. 452, 455-56 , 93 S.W. 738 (1906): In the later case of M., K & T. | 1 | 1999–1999 |