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.
14 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Erazo v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Erazo v. State , 144 S.W.3d 487, 489 (Tex. Crim. 2009See Erazo v. State , 144 S.W.3d 487, 489 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Sink v. Sinkgreen1 sentence2021See Sink v. Sink, 364 S.W.3d 340 , 346–47 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (citing In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 837 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Millergreen1 sentence2021See Sink v. Sink, 364 S.W.3d 340 , 346–47 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (citing In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 837 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
City of North Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd.green1 sentence2014City of N. Richland Hills, 340 S.W.3d at 913, 917 (dismissing a request for attorney’s fees for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction) (citing City of Corinth v. NuRock Dev., Inc., 293 S.W.3d 360, 370 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
City of Corinth v. NUROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC.green1 sentence2014City of N. Richland Hills, 340 S.W.3d at 913, 917 (dismissing a request for attorney’s fees for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction) (citing City of Corinth v. NuRock Dev., Inc., 293 S.W.3d 360, 370 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Ellison v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Ann. art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2010). 22 In the punishment phase, evidence is relevant if it helps the jury determine the appropriate punishment for a particular defendant in a particular case. 13 Admissibility of evidence at punishment is more a matter of policy than of ―logical relevance.‖14 A defendant’s choice of tattoos can reflect his character,15 as can his gang membership.16 Similarly, a defendant’s extraneous sexual conduct can be probative of his character at punishment.17 But under rule 403, otherwise relevant punishment evidence may be excluded if its probative value is s 2011App. 2006). 14 Id. 15 See Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 201 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Conner v. Stategreen1 sentence2011App. 2006). 14 Id. 15 See Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 201 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2010Id. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Oursbourn v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2010Id. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Ovalle v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Abdnor v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
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.