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 2 courts 1938–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramsey v. Dunlopgreen2 sentences2015In Ramsey v. Dunlop, 146 Tex. 196 , 205 S.W.2d 979, 980 (Tex.1947), however, we held that the courts of civil appeals retained the authority to consider fundamental error, notwithstanding the apparent repeal of the statute and the enactment of rule 374. 2015Dunlap, 146 Tex. 196 , 205 S.W.2d policies that informed the application of 979, 980 (Tcx.l947), however, we held that the courts of fundamental-error review. a matter of efticiency civil appeals retained the authority to consider First, as and economy, appellate courts were not requirecl to fundamental error, notwithstanding the apparent repeal of examine the record in order to ascertain whether there the statute and the enactment of rule 374. | 5 | 6 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Anderson v. State, 817 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Gonzales v. State, 838 S.W.2d 848, 863 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1992), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 864 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Gonzales v. State, 838 S.W.2d 848, 863 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1992), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 864 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Barker v. Stategreen2 sentences1996“It seems to have been the unbroken rule since [the original enactment of the requirement that prior to making a statement, the accused must receive the warnings from the person to whom the statement is made] that the confession must have been made to the person named therein as the person to whom it is made.” Barker v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 318 , 299 S.W.2d 142, 143 (1957). 1996“It seems to have been the unbroken rule since [the original enactment of the requirement that prior to making a statement, the accused must receive the warnings from the person to whom the statement is made] that the confession must have been made to the person named therein as the person to whom it is made.” Barker v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 318 , 299 S.W.2d 142, 143 (1957). | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Thus, "unless there has been a showing that the statute has been complied with, the State may not use such evidence as a criminative fact against the defendant." Butler v. State, 493 S.W.2d 190, 193-94 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). 1996Thus, “unless there has been a showing that the statute has been complied with, the State may not use such evidence as a criminative fact against the defendant.” Butler v. State, 493 S.W.2d 190, 193-94 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Rodriguez v. State, 614 S.W.2d 448, 449 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Bernard v. State, 566 S.W.2d 575, 577 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). | 1 | 1 |
Bernard v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Rodriguez v. State, 614 S.W.2d 448, 449 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Bernard v. State, 566 S.W.2d 575, 577 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). | 1 | 1 |
Traders & General Insurance v. Powellgreen2 sentences1981The purpose underlying the enactment of the exception was\to eliminate a dilemma that would otherwise face an employee when instructed to perform a task outside his employer’s usual business, to-wit: either obey his employer and lose his compensation coverage or disobey his employer and lose his job. 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 27.40 (1972); see generally, Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Powell, 82 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1935), rev’d on other grounds, 130 Tex. 375 , 110 S.W.2d 559 (1937). 1981The purpose underlying the enactment of the exception was\to eliminate a dilemma that would otherwise face an employee when instructed to perform a task outside his employer’s usual business, to-wit: either obey his employer and lose his compensation coverage or disobey his employer and lose his job. 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 27.40 (1972); see generally, Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Powell, 82 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1935), rev’d on other grounds, 130 Tex. 375 , 110 S.W.2d 559 (1937). | 1 | 1 |
Traders' & General Ins. Co. v. Powellgreen1 sentence1981The purpose underlying the enactment of the exception was\to eliminate a dilemma that would otherwise face an employee when instructed to perform a task outside his employer’s usual business, to-wit: either obey his employer and lose his compensation coverage or disobey his employer and lose his job. 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 27.40 (1972); see generally, Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Powell, 82 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1935), rev’d on other grounds, 130 Tex. 375 , 110 S.W.2d 559 (1937). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roviaro v. United States
green
2 sentences1999Prior to the enactment of rule 508, Texas law, drawing on the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), required disclosure if the informer: (1) participated in the offense; or (2) was present at the time of the offense or arrest; or (3) was otherwise shown to be a material witness to the transaction or as to whether the defendant knowingly committed the offense charged. 1999Prior to the enactment of rule 508, Texas law, drawing on the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), required disclosure if the informer: (1) participated in the offense; or (2) was present at the time of the offense or arrest; or (3) was otherwise shown to be a material witness to the transaction or as to whether the defendant knowingly committed the offense charged. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Biggs v. United States Fire Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1984In Biggs v. United States Fire Insurance Company, 611 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.1981), the Supreme Court noted that the purpose underlying the enactment of the exception was to eliminate a dilemma that would otherwise face an employee when instructed to perform a task outside his employer’s usual business to-wit: either obey his employer and lose his compensation coverage or disobey his employer and lose his job. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Heisterberg v. Standridge
green
2 sentences1983As in Heisterberg, supra, appellant contends that § 8346 precludes a division of his retirement annuity in a partition suit because the enactment of the exception provided by § 8345(j) did not become effective until after his divorce; and, moreover, the trial court’s partition order is not within the exception contained in § 8345(j) because it is not an order incident to a divorce. 1983As in Heisterberg, supra, appellant contends that § 8346 precludes a division of his retirement annuity in a partition suit because the enactment of the exception provided by § 8345(j) did not become effective until after his divorce; and, moreover, the trial court's partition order is not within the exception contained in § 8345(j) because it is not an order incident to a divorce. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Curtis v. Gibbs
green
1 sentence1976All things properly done under any previously existing rule or statute prior to the taking effect of this Act shall be treated as valid. .“(b) Any action or suit commenced after January 1, 1974, that has as its object the modification of an order, judgment, or decree entered prior to January 1, 1974, but which under this Act would be a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, is governed by the provisions of this Act, and shall be treated as the commencement of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which no court has continuing exclusive jurisdiction.” Under the holding of our | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Speed v. Keys
green
1 sentence1938This exact interpretation of the rule by the majority view was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Railroad Commission v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, 109 S.W.2d 967, 971 , wherein the court held that “this order of the Railroad Commission was not overborne by any *511 presumption, real or supposed, that followed the enactment of rule 37.” And after quoting the entire rule 37 applicable to the East Texas field, the court further held that “by its language the rule is cast into two distinct parts. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.