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.
16 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lovill v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691-92 (Tex. Crim. 2024Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691-92 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Prystash v. Stategreen2 sentences2006However, Fultz stands for the unremarkable proposition that a defendant fails to preserve error on a confrontation rights claim when his trial objections do not comport with his arguments on appeal. 2 The only other authority cited by the majority is Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). 2006However, Fultz stands for the unremarkable proposition that a defendant fails to preserve error on a confrontation rights claim when his trial objections do not comport with his arguments on appeal. (2) The only other authority cited by the majority is Prystash v. State , 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Mendez v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Mendez v. State, 545 S.W.3d 548, 552 (Tex. Crim. 2018When, as here, the defendant fails to preserve error by timely objection at trial, reversal is warranted only upon a showing of “egregious harm” such that the defendant was deprived of “a fair and impartial trial.” Mendez, 545 S.W.3d at 552 . | 1 | 2 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339 ; see also Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d) (“Where a trial objection does not comport with the issue raised on appeal, the appellant has preserved nothing for review.”). | 1 | 1 |
Maldonado v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Hollins, 805 S.W.3d at 476-77; Maldonado v. State, 425 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Threadgill v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 667 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Curry v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Trevino v. State, 470 S.W.3d 660, 663 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d); cf. Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ismael Trevino v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Trevino v. State, 470 S.W.3d 660, 663 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d); cf. Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
McFarland v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 , 511–12 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Loredo v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Loredo v. State , 159 S.W.3d 920, 923-24 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. State
green
2 sentences2015Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 157 . 2012By contrast, when, as here, the defendant fails to preserve error at trial, the record must demonstrate “egregious harm” to obtain reversal.3 Id. at 743-44, citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). | 3 | 2012–2015 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence2026Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339 ; see also Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d) (“Where a trial objection does not comport with the issue raised on appeal, the appellant has preserved nothing for review.”). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Ngo v. State
green
1 sentence2012By contrast, when, as here, the defendant fails to preserve error at trial, the record must 2 demonstrate “egregious harm” to obtain reversal.1 Id. at 743-44 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.