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.
15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. 1991) (definition of value in Section 31.08(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code was “a codification of the standard long established by case law”); Johnson v. State, 564 S.W.2d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. 2010App. 1991) (definition of value in Section 31.08(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code was "a codification of the standard long established by case law"); Johnson v. State , 564 S.W.2d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
North Little Rock Transportation Co. v. Finkbeinergreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Finkbeiner, 243 Ark. 596, 608 (Ark. 1967) (“These sections [Speaking of the 1939 Restatement of Torts §§ 519, 520] are nothing more than a codification of the principle of Rylands v. 34 are two Texas cases that have adopted the evolving Restatement position on strict nuisance liability, one from the Supreme Court and the other from this Court of Appeals. | 1 | 1 |
Garcia, Victor Martinezgreen1 sentence2015See Garcia, 387 S.W.3d at 25 . | 1 | 1 |
City of Houston v. Renault, Inc.green1 sentence2015In City of Houston v. Renault, Inc., 431 S.W.2d 322, 325 (Tex. 1968), in its discussion of the requisite elements of fault to establish a claim for diverting or impounding surface water, the Supreme Court approved the liability standard articulated in Section 833 of the RESTATEMENT (First) OF TORTS (ALI 1939): According to the American Law Institute, the liability of one who causes an unintentional but substantial invasion of the land of another by interfering with the flow of surface water depends upon whether his conduct was negligent, reckless or ultrahazardous. | 1 | 1 |
Matlock v. Data Processing Security, Inc.green1 sentence2013See Marsh USA, Inc., 354 S.W.3d at 772-73 ; DeSantis, 793 S.W.2d at 681 ; Matlock v. Data Processing Sec., Inc., 618 S.W.2d 327, 329 (Tex. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Marsh USA Inc. v. Cookgreen1 sentence2013See Marsh USA, Inc., 354 S.W.3d at 772-73 ; DeSantis, 793 S.W.2d at 681 ; Matlock v. Data Processing Sec., Inc., 618 S.W.2d 327, 329 (Tex. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Rosegreen1 sentence2012Nevertheless, this Court noted that, prior to the codification of rule 412, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the definition of “sexual conduct” in former section 22.065 of the Texas Penal Code, the precursor to rule 412.6 See id. (citing Ex parte Rose, 704 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Fry v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Fry v. State, 915 S.W.2d 554, 560 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no pet. h.). | 1 | 1 |
Bordelon v. Stategreen2 sentences1985Compare Bordelon v. State, 683 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Crim. 1985Compare Bordelon v. State, 683 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Maynard v. State, 685 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. State
green
2 sentences2001Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545 , 547 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). 2001Burke v. State , 28 S.W.3d 545 , 547 n.2 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 2001–2001 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2010App. 1978) (op. on reh’g) (by enacting article 46.02(2)(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the legislature sought to codify prior case law), overruled on other grounds by Williams v. State, 663 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Crim. 2010App. 1978) (op. on reh'g) (by enacting article 46.02(2)(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the legislature sought to codify prior case law), overruled on other grounds by Williams v. State , 663 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Rosscer Craig Tucker, Ii v. Lizabeth Thomas
green
1 sentence2013The Court provides an overview of the codification of this doctrine. 419 S.W.3d at 299 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.
green
1 sentence2013See Marsh USA, Inc., 354 S.W.3d at 772-73 ; DeSantis, 793 S.W.2d at 681 ; Matlock v. Data Processing Sec., Inc., 618 S.W.2d 327, 329 (Tex. 1981). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence2012Nevertheless, this Court noted that, prior to the codification of rule 412, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the definition of “sexual conduct” in former section 22.065 of the Texas Penal Code, the precursor to rule 412.6 See id. (citing Ex parte Rose, 704 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Childress v. State
green
2 sentences1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. 1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Cunningham v. State
neutral
2 sentences1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. 1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Larkin v. State
green
2 sentences1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. 1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Larkin v. State
green
2 sentences1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. 1991Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 500 , 236 S.W. 89 (1921); Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 215 , 241 S.W. 1029 (1922); Larkin v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. 284 , 248 S.W.2d 134 (1952); V.T.C.A. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Davis v. Davis
green
1 sentence1985The rule represents a codification of the rule announced by the Texas Supreme Court that courts should not exclude evidence without “very good cause.” Davis v. Davis, 521 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.1975); Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook, 20 Houston L.Rev. 1 (1983) (commentary by Professor Newell Blakely). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Maynard v. State
green
1 sentence1985Compare Bordelon v. State, 683 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Maynard v. State, 685 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Dusky v. United States
green
2 sentences1978June 19, 1975. 1 This was a codification of the test of competency approved *914 by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). § 2(b) of Article 46.02, supra, in effect at the time of appellant’s trial, provided: “(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.” 2 § 4(a) of Article 46.02, sup 1978June 19, 1975. 1 This was a codification of the test of competency approved *914 by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). § 2(b) of Article 46.02, supra, in effect at the time of appellant’s trial, provided: “(b) If during the trial evidence of the defendant’s incompetency is brought to the attention of the court from any source, the court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.” 2 § 4(a) of Article 46.02, sup | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.