Henderson test (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Henderson test in Texas

14 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (11)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Mooregreen
texcrimapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See 240 S.W.3d at 253 .

2015See 240 S.W.3d at 253 .

33
Long v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1991 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004For the sake of consistency with the Court of Appeals, I also refer to it as the three prong Henderson test. [3] In addition to Henderson, see also Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 277 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 427-428 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

2004In addition to Henderson, see also Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 277 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 427-428 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

22
Priddy v. Rawsongreen
texapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025App. P. 38.3 (stating that appellant “may file a reply brief addressing any matter in the appellee’s brief”); Priddy v. Rawson, 282 S.W.3d 588, 597 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (“The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not allow an appellant to include in a reply brief a new issue not raised in the appellant’s original brief.”). 4 We state Henderson’s ten issues in the appeal from the final judgment as they are stated in the section of Henderson’s brief titled “Issues Presented.” See Tex. R.

11
Collins v. Walkergreen
texapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Borisov v. Keels, No. 01-15-00522-CV, 2016 WL 3022603 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding appellant waived issues on appeal where brief did not include citations to either clerk’s record or any legal authorities); Collins v. Walker, 341 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“Failure to cite legal authority results in waiver of the complaint.”); In re Estate of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (stating failure to cite legal authority or to provide substantive analysis 6 of legal iss

11
In Re Estate of Taylorgreen
texapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Borisov v. Keels, No. 01-15-00522-CV, 2016 WL 3022603 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding appellant waived issues on appeal where brief did not include citations to either clerk’s record or any legal authorities); Collins v. Walker, 341 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“Failure to cite legal authority results in waiver of the complaint.”); In re Estate of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (stating failure to cite legal authority or to provide substantive analysis 6 of legal iss

11
Routier v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Sherber v. State, No. 09-10-00367-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7648 , at **22-23 (Tex. App.— Beaumont Sept. 21, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 591 ).

11
Rachal v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015(See R.R. 4, 150-152 and Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex. Crim.

2015(See R.R. 4, 150-152 and Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex. Crim.

11
Valle v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010App. P. 33.1; Valle v. State , 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim.

11
Washington v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004For the sake of consistency with the Court of Appeals, I also refer to it as the three prong Henderson test. [3] In addition to Henderson, see also Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 277 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 427-428 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

2004In addition to Henderson, see also Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 277 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 427-428 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

11
Smith v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004For the sake of consistency with the Court of Appeals, I also refer to it as the three prong Henderson test. [3] In addition to Henderson, see also Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 277 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 427-428 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

2004In addition to Henderson, see also Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 277 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 427-428 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

11
Yaklin v. Glusing, Sharpe & Kruegergreen
texapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003See Yaklin v. Glusing, Sharpe & Krueger, 875 S.W.2d 380, 384 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ) (holding that evidence attorney represented one party to transaction did not conclusively prove he did not also represent other party).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Stokes v. State green
texcrimapp · 2009
1 sentence

2025“The motion was not hand-delivered to the trial court, there is no notation on the motion indicating that the trial court had seen it, and there is no docket entry showing that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention.” Id.

12025–2025
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
1 sentence

2023Although Henderson’s brief includes a recitation of the facts she believes are relevant on appeal, it includes no record references and cites only generally to the Emergency Order and to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), with no explanation of how those authorities support her arguments.

12023–2023
Henderson v. State green
texcrimapp · 1997
2 sentences

2005Henderson , 962 S.W.2d at 564 .

2005Henderson , 962 S.W.2d at 564 .

12005–2005
Drew v. State green
texcrimapp · 1987
1 sentence

2002Drew, 743 S.W.2d at 226 ; Moreno, 1 S.W.3d at 853 .

12002–2002
Moreno v. State green
texapp · 1999
1 sentence

2002Drew, 743 S.W.2d at 226 ; Moreno, 1 S.W.3d at 853 .

12002–2002

Where else courts name it

NJ 37 (2003–2025) CA 24 (1980–2026) TX 14 (2002–2025) PA 13 (2006–2022) OH 10 (1994–2026) IN 9 (1988–2018) IL 9 (2004–2018) AL 9 (1984–2025) GA 7 (1999–2023) MS 7 (1977–2017) WA 7 (1996–2026) TN 7 (1980–2016) VA 6 (1988–2025) AZ 6 (1978–2023) MA 5 (1982–2020) SC 3 (1988–2026) MD 3 (2009–2018) MO 3 (1992–2013) AR 3 (1995–2022) NE 3 (2014–2018) DC 3 (1985–2024) KS 3 (2019–2020) LA 3 (1987–2016) IA 2 (1994–2016) WV 2 (1986–1992) FL 2 (1996–2007) MI 2 (2003–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check