15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Harpergreen2 sentences2008Id.; see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990) (applying Mathews factors to prisoner’s due process attack on prison policy). a. 2008Id.; see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990) (applying Mathews factors to prisoner’s due process attack on prison policy). a. | 3 | 3 |
Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivorsgreen2 sentences2007See Walters v. Natl Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 319-26 , 105 S.Ct. 3180, 3188-92 , 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 349 , 96 S.Ct. at 909 . 2007See Walters v. Natl Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 319-26 , 105 S.Ct. 3180, 3188-92 , 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 349 , 96 S.Ct. at 909 . | 2 | 2 |
Merritt v. Harris Countygreen2 sentences2004See Than, 901 S.W.2d at 930 (applying Mathews factors to dismissed graduate student’s due process claim under the Texas Constitution); Merritt v. Harris County, 775 S.W.2d 17, 21 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1989, writ denied) (noting that the same due process analysis is required under either the federal or Texas Constitutions and applying the Mathews factors to tenants’ due process claims). 2004See Than, 901 S.W.2d at 930 (applying Mathews factors to dismissed graduate student’s due process claim under the Texas Constitution); Merritt v. Harris County, 775 S.W.2d 17, 21 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1989, writ denied) (noting that the same due process analysis is required under either the federal or Texas Constitutions and applying the Mathews factors to tenants’ due process claims). | 2 | 2 |
University of Texas Medical School at Houston v. Thangreen2 sentences2004See Than, 901 S.W.2d at 930 (applying Mathews factors to dismissed graduate student’s due process claim under the Texas Constitution); Merritt v. Harris County, 775 S.W.2d 17, 21 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1989, writ denied) (noting that the same due process analysis is required under either the federal or Texas Constitutions and applying the Mathews factors to tenants’ due process claims). 2004See Than, 901 S.W.2d at 930 (applying Mathews factors to dismissed graduate student’s due process claim under the Texas Constitution); Merritt v. Harris County, 775 S.W.2d 17, 21 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1989, writ denied) (noting that the same due process analysis is required under either the federal or Texas Constitutions and applying the Mathews factors to tenants’ due process claims). | 2 | 2 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2004The federal court used the accepted Mathews factors to reach its conclusion that James received due process. 2 James, No. 01-20979, slip op. at 8, 48 Fed.Appx. 916 (“We balance three factors to determine whether a government has afforded constitutionally adequate procedures: (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation from current and proposed procedures; and (3) the government’s interest.”) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). 2004The federal court used the accepted Mathews factors to reach its conclusion that James received due process. 2 James, No. 01-20979, slip op. at 8, 48 Fed.Appx. 916 (“We balance three factors to determine whether a government has afforded constitutionally adequate procedures: (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation from current and proposed procedures; and (3) the government’s interest.”) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). | 1 | 4 |
Coty, Leroy Edwardgreen2 sentences2024Coty established that when an applicant in a drug case can satisfy a five-part test focused on misconduct by a forensic analyst, the Court will presume that the testimony and/or evidence presented against the applicant by the analyst is false. 2 In Mathews, the Court extended the Coty presumption 2 The relevant questions under Coty, 418 S.W.3d at 605 , are whether: (1) the technician in question is a state actor, (2) the technician has committed multiple instances of intentional misconduct in another case or cases, (3) the technician is the same technician that worked on the applicant’s case, 2024See Mathews, 638 S.W.3d at 689−690 (“[I]f an ‘[a]pplicant can establish the necessary predicate facts, then the burden shifts to the State of offer evidence demonstrating that the [state actor in applicant’s case] committed no such intentional misconduct in the applicant’s case.’”) (quoting from Coty, 418 S.W.3d at 605 ). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Rmtgreen2 sentences2023See R.M.T., 352 S.W.3d at 20 . 2023See R.M.T., 352 S.W.3d at 20 . | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Davis v. State, 227 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2017After the hearing, the State filed a copy of Mathews’ probable cause affidavit with the District Clerk, so Young’s report was not included in the evidence the trial court considered in ruling on Mathews’ motion. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966). 3 The State also filed the crime lab report after the trial court ruled on Mathews’ motion to suppress, so the trial court did not consider it in ruling on 2 the record that is before us in the appeal. 2017After the hearing, the State filed a copy of Mathews’ probable cause affidavit with the District Clerk, so Young’s report was not included in the evidence the trial court considered in ruling on Mathews’ motion. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966). 3 The State also filed the crime lab report after the trial court ruled on Mathews’ motion to suppress, so the trial court did not consider it in ruling on 2 the record that is before us in the appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Barker v. Wingogreen1 sentence2017See Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 . | 1 | 1 |
Bledsoe v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
Bexar County Sheriff's Civil Service Commission v. Davisgreen2 sentences1999See Davis, 802 S.W.2d at 663 . 1999See Davis, 802 S.W.2d at 663 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Propertygreen2 sentences1997See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 52, 54 , 114 S.Ct. 492, 500, 501 , 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (applying the Mathews factors to an action for civil forfeiture of real property). 1997See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 52, 54 , 114 S.Ct. 492, 500, 501 , 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (applying the Mathews factors to an action for civil forfeiture of real property). | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542-43 , 105 S.Ct. at 1493-94 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 504 . 1990See, e.g., Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542-43 , 105 S.Ct. at 1493-94 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 504 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 712970
green
2 sentences2008Balancing the Mathews Factors in this Case In striking the proper balance between the three Mathews factors in this case, Mahers v. Halford, 76 F.3d 951 (8th Cir.1996), a federal case involving restitution, is instructive. 2008Balancing the Mathews Factors in this Case In striking the proper balance between the three Mathews factors in this case, Mahers v. Halford , 76 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 1996), a federal case involving restitution, is instructive. | 3 | 2008–2008 |
In Re BLD
green
2 sentences2007B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352-54 . 2007B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352-54 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Kelly v. State
green
1 sentence2001Mathews next contends that the court erred by allowing Dr. Edward Gripon to testify as an expert concerning Mathews’ sanity at the time he shot the victims, because the State did not adequately show that the methods Gripon used were valid *184 according to the guidelines set out in Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.