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 1941–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dears v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. 2006See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Feagin v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). 2000See Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Watson v. Stategreen2 sentences1998An appeal to which the restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply is limited to matters which the trial judge allows, to pretrial motions, and to jurisdictional defects. [1] Watson, 924 S.W.2d at 714 . 1998An appeal to wMch the restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply is limited to matters wMch the trial judge allows, to pretrial motions, and to jurisdictional defects. 1 Watson, 924 S.W.2d at 714 . | 1 | 4 |
City of Laredo v. Lealgreen1 sentence2013See City of Laredo v. Leal, 161 S.W.3d 558, 563 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied); Nuchia v. Tippy, 973 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1998, no pet.); see also Smith, 292 S.W.3d at 21 & nn. 49 & 50 (noting that cited opinions failed to “accurately restated the restrictions on a hearing examiner’s authority”). 107 . | 1 | 1 |
City of Pasadena v. Smithgreen1 sentence2013See City of Laredo v. Leal, 161 S.W.3d 558, 563 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied); Nuchia v. Tippy, 973 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1998, no pet.); see also Smith, 292 S.W.3d at 21 & nn. 49 & 50 (noting that cited opinions failed to “accurately restated the restrictions on a hearing examiner’s authority”). 107 . | 1 | 1 |
Nuchia v. Tippygreen1 sentence2013See City of Laredo v. Leal, 161 S.W.3d 558, 563 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied); Nuchia v. Tippy, 973 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1998, no pet.); see also Smith, 292 S.W.3d at 21 & nn. 49 & 50 (noting that cited opinions failed to “accurately restated the restrictions on a hearing examiner’s authority”). 107 . | 1 | 1 |
Dillehey v. Stategreen1 sentence1998The restrictions of the rule also apply to a defendant’s appeal of an order deferring adjudication of guilt. 2 Dillehey v. State, 815 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Whetstone v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). 1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Lyon v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). 1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Dea v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). 1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Perlosgreen2 sentences1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). 1997See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 6 The restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply to an appeal from a “plea bargained conviction.” Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209 , 114 S.Ct. 2684 , 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte McKenziegreen2 sentences1997Interestingly, in McKenzie, it was decided that the dispute did not affect the court’s jurisdiction since the sentence levied "was not beyond [the court’s] power to enter” and since the "judgment was not void.” Ex parte McKenzie, 115 Tex. Crim. 315 , 29 S.W.2d 771, 772 (1930). 1997Interestingly, in McKenzie, it was decided that the dispute did not affect the court’s jurisdiction since the sentence levied "was not beyond [the court’s] power to enter” and since the "judgment was not void.” Ex parte McKenzie, 115 Tex. Crim. 315 , 29 S.W.2d 771, 772 (1930). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rojas v. State
green
2 sentences2000App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Rojas , 943 S.W.2d at 509 . 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Padgett v. State
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Padgett, 764 S.W.2d at 241 ; see also Watson, 924 S.W.2d at 714 (order of deferred adjudication is punishment, thus the restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply). 1997Cf. Padgett, 764 S.W.2d at 241 ; see also Watson, 924 S.W.2d at 714 (order of deferred adjudication is punishment, thus the restrictions of rule 40(b)(1) apply). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. James
green
1 sentence1972Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. James, 471 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, no writ); Davis v. Hinton, 374 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1964, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Barham v. Reames, 366 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1963, no writ). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Davis v. Hinton
green
1 sentence1972Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. James, 471 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, no writ); Davis v. Hinton, 374 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1964, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Barham v. Reames, 366 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1963, no writ). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Barham v. Reames
green
1 sentence1972Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. James, 471 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, no writ); Davis v. Hinton, 374 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1964, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Barham v. Reames, 366 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1963, no writ). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Stewart v. Welsh
green
2 sentences1972Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. James, 471 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, no writ); Davis v. Hinton, 374 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1964, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Barham v. Reames, 366 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1963, no writ). 1972Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314 , 178 S.W.2d 506 (1944); First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. James, 471 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, no writ); Davis v. Hinton, 374 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1964, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Barham v. Reames, 366 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1963, no writ). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Morrow v. Hasselman
green
1 sentence1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Meaney v. Stork
green
1 sentence1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Payson v. Burnham
green
2 sentences1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi 1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Bacon v. Sandberg
green
1 sentence1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Sawin v. Cormier
green
1 sentence1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Seawright v. Blount
green
2 sentences1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi 1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Dethloff v. Voit
neutral
2 sentences1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi 1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Yeomans v. Herrick
green
2 sentences1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi 1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Schadt v. Brill
green
2 sentences1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi 1941He may take no notice of violations not especially offensive to him without losing his right to enforce the restrictions in the case of especially offensive violations/ “In Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 , 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, the court, after a very complete review of the authorities, said: ‘We find the law well settled to the effect that a person owning property in restricted territory does not waive or lose his right to enforce the restrictions where their violation becomes especially and personally offensive and injurious to him and his property by reason of his previous omi | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.