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 2002–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Tex. Crim. 2015Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences2015Supp. at 6) The Court of Criminal Appeals has provided guidance in determining if an officer’s belief is reasonable in that “courts may look to a list of four non-exclusive factors: (1) the nature and level of distress exhibited by the individual; (2) the location of the individual; (3) whether or not the individual was alone and/or had access to assistance other than that offered by the officer; and (4) to what extent the 16 individual, if not assisted, presented a danger to himself or others.” Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277 (citing Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 152 ). 2014Id.; Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 151-52 . | 12 | 2002–2015 |
Corbin v. State
green
2 sentences2015Supp. at 6) The Court of Criminal Appeals has provided guidance in determining if an officer’s belief is reasonable in that “courts may look to a list of four non-exclusive factors: (1) the nature and level of distress exhibited by the individual; (2) the location of the individual; (3) whether or not the individual was alone and/or had access to assistance other than that offered by the officer; and (4) to what extent the 16 individual, if not assisted, presented a danger to himself or others.” Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277 (citing Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 152 ). 2012Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277 ; Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 152 . | 2 | 2012–2015 |
Doiron v. State
green
1 sentence2015In Dorion v. State, the Beaumont Court of Appels upheld the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress based upon the community caretaking function. 283 S.W.3d at 75 . | 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.