108 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.green2 sentences2019See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). 2018See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Company, Inc. , 690 S.W.2d 546 , 548 (Tex. 1985). | 18 | 18 |
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perezgreen2 sentences2002Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991). 2000Lear Siegler, Inc. v. *414 Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex.1991); Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. | 11 | 11 |
Sysco Food Services, Inc. v. Trapnellgreen2 sentences2015Sysco Food Servs. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex. 1994); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. 2012See Sysco Food Servs. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex. 1994); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. | 7 | 7 |
In Re JFCgreen2 sentences2025Code Ann. §§ 101.007 , 161.001(b); In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2012) (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002)) (other citations omitted). 2023STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of proof required in cases involving termination of parental rights is clear and convincing evidence, which is “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” Id. §§ 101.007, 161.001(b); In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2012) (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002)) (other citations omitted). | 5 | 5 |
Carmouche v. Stategreen2 sentences2021STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is a bifurcated standard of review: “giving ‘almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of historical facts’ and reviewing de novo the court’s application of the law 3 of search and seizure.” Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. 2021STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is a bifurcated standard of review: “giving ‘almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of historical facts’ and reviewing de novo the court’s application of the law of search and seizure.” Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2025STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard we apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 61 L. 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard we apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 61 L. | 3 | 7 |
Hernandez v. Kasco Ventures, Inc.green2 sentences1996Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex.1991); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Company, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 646, 548 (Tex.1985); Hernandez v. Kasco Ventures, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no writ); Marsh v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island, 788 S.W.2d 720 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, writ denied). 1996Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex.1991); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., Inc. 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985); Hernandez v. Kasco Ventures, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no writ). | 3 | 4 |
In the Interest of E.N.C., J.A.C., S.A.L., N.A.G. and C.G.L.green2 sentences2025Code Ann. §§ 101.007 , 161.001(b); In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2012) (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002)) (other citations omitted). 2023STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of proof required in cases involving termination of parental rights is clear and convincing evidence, which is “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” Id. §§ 101.007, 161.001(b); In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. 2012) (citing In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002)) (other citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
City of Keller v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2014LEGAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD OF REVIEW The test for legal sufficiency is whether the evidence at trial “would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). 2014LEGAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD OF REVIEW The test for legal sufficiency is whether the evidence at trial “would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). | 3 | 3 |
Cathey v. Boothgreen2 sentences2003See Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex.1995); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. 2003See Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1995); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. | 3 | 3 |
Nisbett, Rex Allengreen2 sentences2020App. 2018); accord Nisbett v. State, 552 S.W.3d 244, 262 (Tex. Crim. 2020App. 2018); accord Nisbett v. State, 552 S.W.3d 244, 262 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Arroyo v. Stategreen2 sentences2020STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of guilt is “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.” Arroyo v. State, 559 S.W.3d 484, 487 (Tex. Crim. 2020STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of guilt is “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.” Arroyo v. State, 559 S.W.3d 484, 487 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
McAfee, Inc. v. Agilysys, Inc.green2 sentences2019See McAfee, Inc. v. Agilysys, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 820, 825 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 2019See McAfee, Inc. v. Agilysys, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 820, 825 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2015Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W. 3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002); Loye v. Travelhost, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). 2010Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Menefield v. Stategreen2 sentences2014INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL A. STANDARD OF REVIEW The test to determine the effectiveness of counsel requires Bernal to show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) counsel’s representation fell below 6 the standard of prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for these unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. 5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–89, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2064–65 (1984); Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. Crim. 2014Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–89, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2064–65 (1984); Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. 2014See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnellgreen2 sentences2011See American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex.1997). 2011See American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell , 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997). | 2 | 2 |
Shupe v. Lingafeltergreen2 sentences2010Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). 2010Shupe v. Lingafelter , 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). | 2 | 2 |
Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc.green2 sentences2006Rush v. Barrios , 56 S.W.3d 88, 94 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (citing Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc ., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex. 1990)). 2006Rush v. Barrios, 56 S.W.3d 88, 94 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (citing Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex.1990)). | 2 | 2 |
Rush v. Barriosgreen2 sentences2006Rush v. Barrios , 56 S.W.3d 88, 94 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (citing Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc ., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex. 1990)). 2006Rush v. Barrios, 56 S.W.3d 88, 94 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (citing Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex.1990)). | 2 | 2 |
Dugan v. Compass Bankgreen2 sentences2005Champion Int’l Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appeals , 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding); Dugan v. Compass Bank , 129 S.W.3d 579, 582 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.). 2005Champion Int’l Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appeals, 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex.1988) (orig.proceeding); Dugan v. Compass Bank, 129 S.W.3d 579, 582 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet .). | 2 | 2 |
Champion International Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appealsgreen2 sentences2005Champion Int’l Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appeals , 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding); Dugan v. Compass Bank , 129 S.W.3d 579, 582 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.). 2005Champion Int’l Corp. v. Twelfth Court of Appeals, 762 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex.1988) (orig.proceeding); Dugan v. Compass Bank, 129 S.W.3d 579, 582 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet .). | 2 | 2 |
Villarreal v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Villareal v. State , 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim. 2002Villarreal v. State , 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Larsen v. Carlene Langford & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2001Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex.1985); Larsen v. Carlene Langford & Assoes., 41 S.W.3d 245, 248-249 (Tex.App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied). 2001Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex.1985); Larsen v. Carlene Langford & Assocs., 41 S.W.3d 245, 248-249 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Skillern v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Skillern v. State, 890 S.W.2d 849, 879 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, pet. ref'd). 1998See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Skillern v. State , 890 S.W.2d 849, 879 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2025See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).2 2 The sole error raised on appeal is the trial court erred in granting TTU’s plea to the jurisdiction. 3 ANALYSIS Section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims Act provides a procedural mechanism to ensure suits against governmental employees based on actions within the scope of employment are redirected to the proper party—the governmental entity itself. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Martin v. State, 176 S.W.3d 887, 897 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Cluck v. Commission for Lawyer Disciplinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thawer v. Commission for Lawyer Disciplinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sauceda v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shah v. Mossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvalegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Joyner v. Joynergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tenet Health Ltd. v. Zamoragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Krause v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barnum v. Munson, Munson, Pierce & Cardwell, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lowenberg v. City of Dallasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Loye v. Travelhost, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Harbor Perfusion, Inc. v. Floydgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2014INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL A. STANDARD OF REVIEW The test to determine the effectiveness of counsel requires Bernal to show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) counsel’s representation fell below 6 the standard of prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for these unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. 5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–89, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2064–65 (1984); Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. Crim. 2014INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL A. STANDARD OF REVIEW The test to determine the effectiveness of counsel requires Bernal to show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) counsel’s representation fell below 6 the standard of prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for these unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. 5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–89, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2064–65 (1984); Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 1996–2014 |
Guzman v. State
green
2 sentences2021App. 2000) (quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 , 88–89 (Tex. Crim. 2021App. 2000) (quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 , 88–89 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Griggs v. Capitol MacHine Works, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 , 241–42 (Tex. 1985). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Almanza v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Haines v. Kerner green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Walling v. Metcalfe green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Minuteman Press International, Inc. v. Sparks green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Clewis v. State red | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Marsh v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.
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.