revised standard in Texas

16 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2018 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.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
Zuniga v. Statered texcrimapp · 2004 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2005 2 sentences 2005See Zuniga, 114 [ 144 S.W.3d at 484-85 .] This revised standard encompasses both objectives stated in Zuniga ; first, it directly links the burden of proof to the standard of review on appeal, and second, it removes the great weight and preponderance language from the standard of review. 2005*See Zuniga, [ 144 S.W.3d at 484-85 .] This revised standard encompasses both objectives stated in Zuniga ; first, it directly links the burden of proof to the standard of review on appeal, and second, it removes the great weight and preponderance language from the standard of review.	3	3
Holland v. Floridagreen scotus · 2010 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., Holland v. Florida, — U.S.-,-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563 , 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (courts of equity must take account of “specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, [that] could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case”); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 375 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) (“exercise of a court’s equity powers ... must be made on a case-by-case basis”); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582 , 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (“Equity eschews mechanical rules; it depends on flexibility”). 2013See, e.g., Holland v. Florida, — U.S.-,-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563 , 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (courts of equity must take account of “specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, [that] could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case”); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 375 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) (“exercise of a court’s equity powers ... must be made on a case-by-case basis”); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582 , 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (“Equity eschews mechanical rules; it depends on flexibility”).	2	2
Holmberg v. Armbrechtgreen scotus · 1946 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., Holland v. Florida, — U.S.-,-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563 , 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (courts of equity must take account of “specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, [that] could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case”); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 375 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) (“exercise of a court’s equity powers ... must be made on a case-by-case basis”); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582 , 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (“Equity eschews mechanical rules; it depends on flexibility”). 2013See, e.g., Holland v. Florida, — U.S.-,-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563 , 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (courts of equity must take account of “specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, [that] could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case”); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 375 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) (“exercise of a court’s equity powers ... must be made on a case-by-case basis”); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582 , 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (“Equity eschews mechanical rules; it depends on flexibility”).	2	2
Baggett v. Bullittgreen scotus · 1964 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., Holland v. Florida, — U.S.-,-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563 , 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (courts of equity must take account of “specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, [that] could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case”); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 375 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) (“exercise of a court’s equity powers ... must be made on a case-by-case basis”); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582 , 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (“Equity eschews mechanical rules; it depends on flexibility”). 2013See, e.g., Holland v. Florida, — U.S.-,-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563 , 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (courts of equity must take account of “specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, [that] could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case”); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 375 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) (“exercise of a court’s equity powers ... must be made on a case-by-case basis”); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582 , 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (“Equity eschews mechanical rules; it depends on flexibility”).	2	2
Roy v. Stategreen texapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See Zuniga, [ 144 S.W.3d at 484 .] Roy v. State, 161 S.W.3d 30, 35-36 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet. h.). 2005See Zuniga, [ 144 S.W.3d at 484 .] Roy v. State, 161 S.W.3d 30, 35-36 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet. h.).	2	2
Perez, Ex Parte Alberto Girongreen texcrimapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018In Issue One, he contends the trial court erred in “not acting as a court of equity to apply the Applicant’s equities for the Applicant’s writ of habeas corpus.” Appellant contends the trial court should have acted as a “court of equity” and should have performed the revised analysis established by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 208, 215 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013). 2018Perez expanded the definition of prejudice under the then-existing laches standard and was developed with regard to the “parameters of the equitable doctrine of laches as it applies to bar a long-delayed application for a writ of habeas corpus.” Id.	1	1
Hall v. Floridagreen scotus · 2014 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015After reformulating the standard, I would remand this case for the habeas court to consider whether, under the revised standard, it recommends granting relief to Bobby 6 See maj. op., at 5-6 (quoting Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986, 2000 (2014)).	1	1
Ex Parte Drakegreen texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See, e.g., Ex parte Emmons, 660 S.W.2d 106, 110 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Ex parte Drake, 883 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). 13 This revised standard will permit courts to engage in a case-by-case inquiry to deter mine whether equitable relief is warranted in light of the particular circumstances surrounding each case.	1	1
Ex Parte Emmonsgreen texcrimapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See, e.g., Ex parte Emmons, 660 S.W.2d 106, 110 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Ex parte Drake, 883 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). 13 This revised standard will permit courts to engage in a case-by-case inquiry to deter mine whether equitable relief is warranted in light of the particular circumstances surrounding each case.	1	1
Cooper v. Texas Gulf Industries, Inc.green tex · 1974 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012See Cooper, 513 S.W.2d at 203 .	1	1
Bruno v. Stategreen texapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See id.	1	1
Sutter v. Hendricksgreen texapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Johnson v. Johnson, 869 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1993, writ denied); Sutter v. Hendricks, 575 S.W.2d 308, 310 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.).	1	1
Johnson v. Johnsongreen texapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Johnson v. Johnson, 869 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1993, writ denied); Sutter v. Hendricks, 575 S.W.2d 308, 310 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.).	1	1
Young v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992However, in Young v. State, 826 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) the court, in discussing whether a statement in a footnote was a holding of the court or dictum, stated, in a footnote: “As is generally true with footnotes, we regard this footnote [Footnote 6A in Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 490 U.S. 754 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989) ] as dictum_” Thus it seems our highest criminal court seems to regard footnotes as dictum. 4 Consequently, we must utilize the revised standard established by the rule and used by Justice Vance, but without his pre-r	1	1
Yellow Cab and Baggage Company v. Greengreen tex · 1955 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Service, Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.1967); Yellow Cab and Baggage Company v. Green, 154 Tex. 330 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955). 1978Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Service, Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.1967); Yellow Cab and Baggage Company v. Green, 154 Tex. 330 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955).	1	1
Lavender v. Kurngreen scotus · 1946 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 2 sentences 1977See Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653 , 66 S.Ct. 740 , 90 L.Ed.2d 916 (1945); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. 1977See Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653 , 66 S.Ct. 740 , 90 L.Ed.2d 916 (1945); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Payne green tex · 1992 1 sentence 1998Id.	1	1998–1998
Tompkins v. Texas green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 1992However, in Young v. State, 826 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) the court, in discussing whether a statement in a footnote was a holding of the court or dictum, stated, in a footnote: “As is generally true with footnotes, we regard this footnote [Footnote 6A in Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 490 U.S. 754 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989) ] as dictum_” Thus it seems our highest criminal court seems to regard footnotes as dictum. 4 Consequently, we must utilize the revised standard established by the rule and used by Justice Vance, but without his pre-r 1992However, in Young v. State, 826 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) the court, in discussing whether a statement in a footnote was a holding of the court or dictum, stated, in a footnote: “As is generally true with footnotes, we regard this footnote [Footnote 6A in Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 490 U.S. 754 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989) ] as dictum_” Thus it seems our highest criminal court seems to regard footnotes as dictum. 4 Consequently, we must utilize the revised standard established by the rule and used by Justice Vance, but without his pre-r	1	1992–1992
Tompkins v. State green texcrimapp · 1987 1 sentence 1992However, in Young v. State, 826 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) the court, in discussing whether a statement in a footnote was a holding of the court or dictum, stated, in a footnote: “As is generally true with footnotes, we regard this footnote [Footnote 6A in Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 490 U.S. 754 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989) ] as dictum_” Thus it seems our highest criminal court seems to regard footnotes as dictum. 4 Consequently, we must utilize the revised standard established by the rule and used by Justice Vance, but without his pre-r	1	1992–1992
Express-News Corp. v. Spears green texapp · 1989 1 sentence 1990Express-News Corp. v. Spears, 766 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.App.1989, no writ).	1	1990–1990
Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Service, Inc. green tex · 1967 1 sentence 1978Moulton v. Alamo Ambulance Service, Inc., 414 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.1967); Yellow Cab and Baggage Company v. Green, 154 Tex. 330 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955).	1	1978–1978
Members Mutual Insurance Co. v. Muckelroy green texapp · 1975 1 sentence 1976We said in Members Mutual Insurance Co. v. Muckelroy, 523 S.W.2d 77 (1975, writ ref. n. r. e.): “Under the revised rule, where the broad form of submission is adopted, the extent of the jury’s consideration of the elements comprising the controlling issue becomes a matter of evidence and argument, subject to appropriate instruction of the court.” See Mobil Chemical Co. v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.1974); Shasteen v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 517 S.W .2d 437 (Tex.Civ.App.1975, writ ref. n. r. e.); Pope & Lowerre, Revised Rule 277-A, Better Special Verdict System of Texas, 27 S.W.L.J. 577	1	1976–1976
Mobil Chemical Company v. Bell green tex · 1974 1 sentence 1976We said in Members Mutual Insurance Co. v. Muckelroy, 523 S.W.2d 77 (1975, writ ref. n. r. e.): “Under the revised rule, where the broad form of submission is adopted, the extent of the jury’s consideration of the elements comprising the controlling issue becomes a matter of evidence and argument, subject to appropriate instruction of the court.” See Mobil Chemical Co. v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.1974); Shasteen v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 517 S.W .2d 437 (Tex.Civ.App.1975, writ ref. n. r. e.); Pope & Lowerre, Revised Rule 277-A, Better Special Verdict System of Texas, 27 S.W.L.J. 577	1	1976–1976

Where else courts name it

CA 38 (1963–2024) NJ 20 (1956–2025) FL 18 (1977–2021) TX 16 (1976–2018) IL 15 (1965–2025) AR 14 (1958–2024) PA 14 (1989–2024) IA 11 (1974–2026) WA 10 (1986–2019) MA 9 (1993–2024) IN 8 (1986–2025) NY 8 (1982–2025) DC 6 (1976–2024) MS 6 (2001–2019) OR 5 (2006–2017) KS 5 (1981–2009) MD 5 (1979–2011) WI 4 (1981–2014) MO 4 (1967–2020) NM 4 (1996–2010) GA 4 (1973–1991) CO 4 (1979–2018) WV 3 (2013–2015) UT 3 (1993–2019) AZ 3 (2015–2024) AK 3 (1973–1992) AL 2 (1969–2014) RI 2 (1969–2007) CT 2 (1972–2009) ME 2 (2016–2023) MN 2 (2003–2009) MI 2 (1988–2005) HI 2 (2002–2022) NV 2 (2007–2018) MT 2 (2013–2020) OH 2 (1990–2008) WY 2 (1999–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check