14 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
S & P CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLLC v. Bakergreen2 sentences2011The S & P Consulting Engineers court chose to rectify this apparent contradiction by disregarding a grammatical rule of construction and deciding that the adjective “negligent” only modified “act,” rather than “act, error, or omission” in Section 150.002(a). 334 S.W.3d at 403 (allowing a certificate to delineate either a negligent “act” or in a non-negligence case the “error or omission”). 2011The S & P Consulting Engineers court chose to rectify this apparent contradiction by disregarding a grammatical rule of construction and deciding that the adjective ―negligent‖ only modified ―act,‖ rather than ―act, error, or omission‖ in Section 150.002(a). 334 S.W.3d at 403 (allowing a certificate to delineate either a negligent ―act‖ or in a non-negligence case the ―error or omission‖). | 3 | 3 |
Wallace v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecency-with-a-ehild statute defined three separate offenses for jury-unanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). 2013See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecency-with-a-child statute defined three separate offenses for jury-unanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89 , 91 Loving–13 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Pizzo v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecency-with-a-ehild statute defined three separate offenses for jury-unanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). 2013See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecency-with-a-child statute defined three separate offenses for jury-unanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89 , 91 Loving–13 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Harris, Owen Thomasgreen2 sentences2013See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecency-with-a-ehild statute defined three separate offenses for jury-unanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). 2013See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecency-with-a-child statute defined three separate offenses for jury-unanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89 , 91 Loving–13 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Zuniga v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 735 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ; Taylor, 332 S.W.3d at 490 . 10 V. | 1 | 1 |
Barnhart v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2015See Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S. Ct. 376, 380 (2003). 8 usage is not separate from textual meaning.”); Gen. 2015See Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 , 124 S. Ct. 376, 380 (2003). 8 usage is not separate from textual meaning.”); Gen. | 1 | 1 |
Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd. v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLCgreen1 sentence2015Goodman et al., The Rodney Dangerfield Clauses: Ten Lease Provisions That Get No Respect, 24 Prob. & Prop. 47, 49 (2010) (“When surrender provisions are litigated, a court will likely interpret the surrender provision in the context of the lease as a whole.”) In the surrender covenant, LeComte must return the hanger to Foster in the same condition as when received, “allowing for reasonable use and wear and damages by acts of God, including fire and storms.” The clause “including fire and storms” directly follows and only modifies “damages by acts of God” under the grammatical rule of the last | 1 | 1 |
Hogue v. Stategreen1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1 |
Livingston v. Stategreen1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Stategreen1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1 |
Morin v. Stategreen1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2011Another aspect of grammar indicating the gravamen of the offense “is that a legislative reference to an item in the singular suggests that each instance of that item is a separate unit of prosecution.” Jones, 323 S.W.3d at 891 . 2011Another aspect of grammar indicating the gravamen of the offense “is that a legislative reference to an item in the singular suggests that each instance of that item is a separate unit of prosecution.” Jones, 323 S.W.3d at 891 . | 3 | 2011–2011 |
Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Denton, Marc Wilson, M.D., and Alliance ob/gyn Specialists, Pllc D/B/A ob/gyn Specialists, Pllc v. D.A. and M.A., Individually and as Next Friends of A.A., a Minor
green
1 sentence2024Id. (quoting Tex. W. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lefevers v. State
green
1 sentence2022As we said in Lefevers, “[e]ach of the enumerated actions involves genital contact [or] anal contact,” giving “‘ultimate sex act’ a meaning readily comprehended by the average person.” Lefevers, 20 S.W.3d at 712 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence2018See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ; Taylor, 332 S.W.3d at 490 . 10 V. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Russell v. State
green
1 sentence1988Because we find that Russell, supra, is on point with the instant case, we overrule appellant’s fourteenth and final point of error. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
White v. Texas
green
1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Livingston v. Texas
green
1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hill v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Owens v. Meanor
green
1 sentence1988Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 988 , 97 S.Ct. 1689 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977) (Grammatical error in the indictment did not mislead defendant or deny him fair notice of the offense with which he was charged.); Jordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 , 97 S.Ct. 2642 , 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Ownership of property need not be alleged in a capital murder indictment which alleges the murder occurred during the course of a robbery); Hogue v. State, 711 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.