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 1 courts 1996–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Keller v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2020It was charged with determining whether the deputy’s actions proximately caused Amron’s death. 3 The panel opinion also ignores the legal sufficiency review standard that instructs appellate courts to “credit favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregard contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). 2011Miller, 102 S.W.3d at 709 ; see also City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 823 (explaining when there is “no-evidence” of fact). | 3 | 3 |
Wesbrook v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Wesbrook , 29 S.W.3d at 111 . 2006Wesbrook v. State , 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Matter of Asgreen2 sentences1998The majority quotes from an opinion out of the El Paso Court of Appeals, In the Matter of A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855, 861-62 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1997, no writ). 1998The majority quotes from an opinion out of the El Paso Court of Appeals, In the Matter of A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855, 861-62 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1997, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2016Under a legal sufficiency review standard, we review the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 318–19 (1979). 2011This factual sufficiency review standard announced at that time was contrasted with that of the legal sufficiency review standard set out by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979): “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 128-29 . | 1 | 3 |
Ex Parte Williamsgreen2 sentences2008Keller , 125 S.W.3d at 605 (citing Ex Parte Williams , 703 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tex. Crim. 2003Ex Parte Williams, 703 S.W.2d at 682 (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)). | 1 | 3 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 , 894–95 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Christiansen v. Prezelskigreen1 sentence2009See Christiansen v. Prezelski , 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (“An appellant must either comply with [the predecessor to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c)] or file a complete statement of facts; otherwise, it will be presumed that the omitted portions are relevant to the disposition of the appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Stategreen2 sentences1996To merit relief, we must determine that “the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence presented at trial so as to be clearly wrong and unjust....” Id. slip op. at 13,—S.W.2d at-. 1996Jan. 31, 1996). 6 This review is different from the legal sufficiency review standard discussed above in that, with a factual sufficiency review, we are to view “all the evidence without the prism of ‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution.’ ... [and] set[s] aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.” Id. slip op. at 2,—S.W.2d at-(citing Stone v. State, 823 S.W.2d 375, 381 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, pet ref'd, untimely filed) (alterations in original)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clewis v. State
red
2 sentences2011This factual sufficiency review standard announced at that time was contrasted with that of the legal sufficiency review standard set out by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979): “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 128–29. 2011This factual sufficiency review standard announced at that time was contrasted with that of the legal sufficiency review standard set out by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979): “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 128-29 . | 3 | 1996–2011 |
Boykin v. Alabama
red
2 sentences2003Ex Parte Williams, 703 S.W.2d at 682 (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)). 2003Ex Parte Williams, 703 S.W.2d at 682 (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller
green
1 sentence2011Miller, 102 S.W.3d at 709 ; see also City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 823 (explaining when there is “no-evidence” of fact). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Keller v. State
green
1 sentence2008Keller , 125 S.W.3d at 605 (citing Ex Parte Williams , 703 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.