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 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gigliobianco v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (noting these factors as a refinement to a four factor test appearing in prior cases). 2017Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (noting these factors as a refinement to a four factor test appearing in prior cases). | 7 | 7 |
In Re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc.green2 sentences2010Id. at 780 ; In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Tex. 2005)(per curiam). 2010Id. at 780 ; In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Tex. 2005)(per curiam). | 2 | 2 |
Julie Hersh v. John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatumgreen1 sentence2025McComb also relies on American Heritage Capital, LP v. Gonzalez for the proposition that four factors are relevant to the assessment of TCPA sanctions: (1) the plaintiff’s annual net profits; (2) the amount of attorney’s fees incurred; (3) the plaintiff’s history of filing similar suits; and (4) any aggravating misconduct. 436 S.W.3d 865, 881 (‘Tex. App.––Dallas 2014, no pet.) (noting facts relevant to these four topics without articulating a four- factor test), disapproved of on other grounds by Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. 2017); see ADB Int., LLC v. Wallace, 606 S.W.3d 413 , 44 | 1 | 1 |
American Heritage Capital, LP v. Dinah Gonzalez and Alan Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2025McComb also relies on American Heritage Capital, LP v. Gonzalez for the proposition that four factors are relevant to the assessment of TCPA sanctions: (1) the plaintiff’s annual net profits; (2) the amount of attorney’s fees incurred; (3) the plaintiff’s history of filing similar suits; and (4) any aggravating misconduct. 436 S.W.3d 865, 881 (‘Tex. App.––Dallas 2014, no pet.) (noting facts relevant to these four topics without articulating a four- factor test), disapproved of on other grounds by Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. 2017); see ADB Int., LLC v. Wallace, 606 S.W.3d 413 , 44 | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Huskey and Landrian both relied on Scott v. State, in which the Court of Criminal Appeals considered the four factors in holding that the trial court erred in refusing to reopen the evidence after both sides closed to allow the defendant to present an alibi witness. 597 S.W.2d 755, 758 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Torres v. Stategreen1 sentence2021We granted review to determine whether the court of appeals misapplied the four- factor test from Brown and whether the court of appeals= finding of probable cause was based on opinions rather than facts in conflict with Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Fleming v. Jefferson County School District R-1green1 sentence2017Id. at 923. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte De Los Reyesgreen1 sentence2015The COA for the Eight District reasoned that “[w]hile the State points us to a four-factor approach to prejudice that our sister circuit in Houston has taken that assesses a defendant’s probability of success at trial,…, we have previously rejected a solely merits-based prejudice analysis, recognizing that ‘[d]eprivation of a trial’ stemming from a Padilla violation ‘is a structural defect, which amounts to a serious denial of the entire judicial proceeding itself, and it demands a presumption of prejudice.’ Ex parte De Los Reyes, 350 S.W.3d 723, 730 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2011, pet. granted), rev | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re D. Wilson Const. Co.
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 780 ; In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Tex. 2005)(per curiam). 2010Id. at 780 ; In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Tex. 2005)(per curiam). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Bertell Ollman v. Rowland Evans, Robert Novak
green
2 sentences1989Id. at 979 ; Kerr, 706 S.W.2d at 798 . 1989Oilman, 750 F.2d at 979 ; Kerr, 706 S.W.2d at 798 . | 2 | 1989–1989 |
El Paso Times, Inc. v. Kerr
green
2 sentences1989Id. at 979 ; Kerr, 706 S.W.2d at 798 . 1989Oilman, 750 F.2d at 979 ; Kerr, 706 S.W.2d at 798 . | 2 | 1989–1989 |
De Los Reyes, Ex Parte Joel
green
2 sentences2015The COA for the Eight District reasoned that “[w]hile the State points us to a four-factor approach to prejudice that our sister circuit in Houston has taken that assesses a defendant’s probability of success at trial,…, we have previously rejected a solely merits-based prejudice analysis, recognizing that ‘[d]eprivation of a trial’ stemming from a Padilla violation ‘is a structural defect, which amounts to a serious denial of the entire judicial proceeding itself, and it demands a presumption of prejudice.’ Ex parte De Los Reyes, 350 S.W.3d 723, 730 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2011, pet. granted), rev 2015The COA for the Eight District reasoned that “[w]hile the State points us to a four-factor approach to prejudice that our sister circuit in Houston has taken that assesses a defendant’s probability of success at trial,…, we have previously rejected a solely merits-based prejudice analysis, recognizing that ‘[d]eprivation of a trial’ stemming from a Padilla violation ‘is a structural defect, which amounts to a serious denial of the entire judicial proceeding itself, and it demands a presumption of prejudice.’ Ex parte De Los Reyes, 350 S.W.3d 723, 730 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2011, pet. granted), rev | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.