14 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Collins argues that, although the trial court admonished him at length on the perils of representing himself, the waiver of his right to counsel was not knowingly and intelligently made because the trial court did not conduct an in-depth inquiry into Collins’s “age, experience with the legal system, knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure for the State of Texas, or his overall maturity to conduct his own defense.” See Johnson v. State, 760 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hancock Fabrics, Inc. v. Rowdec, LLCgreen1 sentence2021See Hancock Fabrics, Inc. v. Rowdec, LLC, 126 F. Supp. 3d 784, 792 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Westend Capital Management, L.L.C.green1 sentence2021See Cooper v. WestEnd Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., 832 F.3d 534 , 542 n.1 (5th Cir. 2016).4 But a federal Cooper noted that “[s]ome courts have concluded that res judicata is generally 4 an issue for the arbitrator rather than the court and is thus not a basis to enjoin 13 district court in the Fifth Circuit conducted an in-depth analysis of the issue and held that res judicata was a procedural question for the arbitrator. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2015According to the Court of Criminal Appeals, We agree with the Austin Court of Appeals that, consistent with the rationale for admitting statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment over a hearsay objection, it is appropriate to require the proponent of the evidence to show that the out-of-court declarant was aware that the statements were made for that purpose and that “proper diagnosis or treatment depends on the veracity of such statements.”…Absent such awareness on the declarant’s part, we cannot be sure that the self- interested motive to tell the truth, making such state | 1 | 1 |
Gipson v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Gipson, 844 S.W.2d at 741 . 1996See Gipson, 844 S.W.2d at 741 . | 1 | 1 |
Grasso v. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Linesgreen2 sentences1996Therefore, in spite of my personal view that this trial judge presented the issues rationally and in the manner I would advocate that the issues be presented, I join the dissent in holding that we cannot overrule the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Grasso v. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Lines, 125 Tex. 154 , 81 S.W.2d 482, 487 (1935), and, therefore, would find the trial court abused its discretion in submitting the instruction at issue. 1996Therefore, in spite of my personal view that this trial judge presented the issues rationally and in the manner I would advocate that the issues be presented, I join the dissent in holding that we cannot overrule the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Grasso v. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Lines, 125 Tex. 154 , 81 S.W.2d 482, 487 (1935), and, therefore, would find the trial court abused its discretion in submitting the instruction at issue. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Hill v. Pirtlegreen2 sentences1994If our mandamus jurisprudence is unsettled and lacks “a clear or definitive statement” regarding our authority to grant relief, concurring op. 887 S.W.2d at 934 (Meyers, J., concurring), the plurality opinion fails to provide such a statement. 1994If our mandamus jurisprudence is unsettled and lacks "a clear or definitive statement" regarding our authority to grant relief, concurring op. 887 S.W.2d at 934 (Meyers, J., concurring), the plurality opinion fails to provide such a statement. | 1 | 1 |
Cliff v. Hugginsgreen1 sentence1990The court in Roll cited two sources as support: (1) the supreme court decision in Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778, 779 (Tex.1987), that “makes no mention of a free of negligence standard with regard to the three-prong Craddock test;” and (2) “the in-depth analysis given this topic in the law review article of Pohl and Hittner, Judgment by Default in Texas, 37 SW.L.J. 421, 443, in which the authors unequivocally state that, under the Craddock test, ‘The defendant’s negligence will not preclude the setting aside of a judgment by default. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zinger v. State
green
2 sentences2012This information, coupled with the trial attorney’s statement at the hearing that an alternative suspect would more likely have been Shuntae Ingram, since, Ingram had been stealing cars from the victim, would have led to an in-depth defense that would have implicated 110the standard set forth in Zinger v. State, 313 Ark. 70 , 852 S.W.2d 320 (1993), for allowing the defendant to point to another person as a perpetrator. 2012This information, coupled with the trial attorney’s statement at the hearing that an alternative suspect would more likely have been Shuntae Ingram, since, Ingram had been stealing cars from the victim, would have led to an in-depth defense that would have implicated 110the standard set forth in Zinger v. State, 313 Ark. 70 , 852 S.W.2d 320 (1993), for allowing the defendant to point to another person as a perpetrator. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
City of Dallas v. Jennings
green
1 sentence2007In Gragg and City of Dallas v. Jennings , 142 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2004), decided the same day, the supreme court conducted an in-depth analysis of the takings clause as it applies to situations similar to the facts in the instant case. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1996In State v. Johnson, 821 S.W.2d 609 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), the trial court dismissed a case on the defendant’s motion when the prosecutor failed to appear in court at the time the case was called for trial. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1992As previously stated, the Court of Criminal Appeals’ harmless error analysis includes several factors to be considered. 6 Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 587 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ward v. State
green
1 sentence1989Consequently, an in-depth analysis of whether the appellant received effective assistance of counsel is unnecessary as it is apparent that the appellant as a practical matter received no assistance....” This holding in Ward, supra, applies in this matter because the appellant received no assistance upon remand and resubmission of his appeal to the Court of Appeals. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Slappy v. State
green
1 sentence1988In Keeton , the Court referred to three cases from other jurisdictions with an express approval: State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51 (Mo.1987); Slappy v. State, 503 So.2d 350 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Ex Parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Antwine
green
1 sentence1988In Keeton , the Court referred to three cases from other jurisdictions with an express approval: State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51 (Mo.1987); Slappy v. State, 503 So.2d 350 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Ex Parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ex Parte Branch
green
1 sentence1988In Keeton , the Court referred to three cases from other jurisdictions with an express approval: State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51 (Mo.1987); Slappy v. State, 503 So.2d 350 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); Ex Parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Keeton v. State
green
1 sentence1988The most recent in-depth analysis of Bat-son error by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (opinion following abatement). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences1977In Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at page 819 , 95 S.Ct. at page 2533 , the Supreme Court of the United States makes plain to all the true meaning of the Sixth Amendment by the following pronouncements: "The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense... 1977In Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at page 819 , 95 S.Ct. at page 2533 , the Supreme Court of the United States makes plain to all the true meaning of the Sixth Amendment by the following pronouncements: "The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense... | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.