16 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See id., see also Stewart v. State, No. 05–02–01005–CR, 2003 WL 1735150 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (holding prosecutor did not –9– make improper argument in trial for aggravated sexual assault of a child, by asking the jury to question why the defendant had not called anyone to testify the victim was untruthful if her story, according to him, was not true; the complained-of statements were specific responses to defense counsel’s arguments as to victim’s credibility); Lange, 57 S.W.3d at 469 (holding prosecutor’s argument was invited due to defense counsel’s attack on the victi | 1 | 1 |
Lange v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See id., see also Stewart v. State, No. 05–02–01005–CR, 2003 WL 1735150 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (holding prosecutor did not –9– make improper argument in trial for aggravated sexual assault of a child, by asking the jury to question why the defendant had not called anyone to testify the victim was untruthful if her story, according to him, was not true; the complained-of statements were specific responses to defense counsel’s arguments as to victim’s credibility); Lange, 57 S.W.3d at 469 (holding prosecutor’s argument was invited due to defense counsel’s attack on the victi | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See id., see also Stewart v. State, No. 05–02–01005–CR, 2003 WL 1735150 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (holding prosecutor did not –9– make improper argument in trial for aggravated sexual assault of a child, by asking the jury to question why the defendant had not called anyone to testify the victim was untruthful if her story, according to him, was not true; the complained-of statements were specific responses to defense counsel’s arguments as to victim’s credibility); Lange, 57 S.W.3d at 469 (holding prosecutor’s argument was invited due to defense counsel’s attack on the victi | 1 | 1 |
McDuffie v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See id., see also Stewart v. State, No. 05–02–01005–CR, 2003 WL 1735150 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (holding prosecutor did not –9– make improper argument in trial for aggravated sexual assault of a child, by asking the jury to question why the defendant had not called anyone to testify the victim was untruthful if her story, according to him, was not true; the complained-of statements were specific responses to defense counsel’s arguments as to victim’s credibility); Lange, 57 S.W.3d at 469 (holding prosecutor’s argument was invited due to defense counsel’s attack on the victi | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2021See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (“Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.”). 2021See id. | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Fensterergreen2 sentences2002Delaware v. Fensterer , 474 U.S. 15, 19 , 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15, 19 (1985). 2002Delaware v. Fensterer , 474 U.S. 15, 19 , 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15, 19 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Nowotnygreen1 sentence1981Dr. Story’s motion for instructed verdict asserted that the evidence established that Dr. Story was an employee of the State of Texas and that at all times “material to this action” he was working within the course and scope of his employment with the State of Texas “and that any action against him individually is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” In Morris v. Nowotny, 323 S.W.2d 301, 311 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1959, writ ref’d n. r. e.), the Court said, “Nor is it disputable that public officers are not liable to individuals for acts done within the scope of their public duties. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences1983Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness.’ Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , [1110,] 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). 1983Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness.’ Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , [1110,] 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). | 11 | 1982–2017 |
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.