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 2 courts 1992–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Erwin v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Erwin v. State, 729 S.W.2d 709, 714 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). 2003Erwin v. State, 729 S.W.2d 709, 714 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
Gant v. Stategreen2 sentences2020App. 1993); see Gant v. State, 649 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Tex. Crim. 2020App. 1993); see Gant v. State, 649 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Moreno v. Stategreen2 sentences2020In Moreno v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals set out the procedure for preserving error when contesting a search warrant and its accompanying affidavit. 858 S.W.2d 453, 461 (Tex. Crim. 2020In Moreno v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals set out the procedure for preserving error when contesting a search warrant and its accompanying affidavit. 858 S.W.2d 453, 461 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Jacobs v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Id. at 310 (citing Jacobs v. State , 787 S.W.2d 397, 405 (Tex. Crim. 2012Id. at 310 (citing Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d 397, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.1990)). | 2 | 2 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2002In A.P., the court reasoned, “To terminate parental rights when there is insufficient evidence only because the complaint was not preserved does not adhere to Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process.” A.P., 42 S.W.3d at 255 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)). 2002In A.P., the court reasoned, “To terminate parental rights when there is insufficient evidence only because the complaint was not preserved does not adhere to Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process.” A.P., 42 S.W.3d at 255 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)). | 1 | 2 |
Bone v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. WILLIAMS BROS. CONST. CO., INC.green1 sentence2013See Cortez, 159 S.W.3d at 91 (holding harm presumed from erroneous denial of challenge for cause because “we cannot know for certain that [veniremember’s] inclusion [on the jury] did not affect the verdict”); Jackson, 364 S.W.3d at 321-22 (stating “[i]f the ordinary procedure for preserving error relating to a particular juror had been followed, any such error could have been remedied by the trial court”) (relying on Cortez, 159 S.W.3d at 91). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Cortez Ex Rel. Estate of Puentes v. HCCI-San Antonio, Inc.green2 sentences2011See id. 2011See id. | 1 | 1 |
Hallett v. Houston Northwest Medical Centergreen1 sentence1994The procedure for preserving error of a trial court’s failure to strike jurors for cause is set out in Hallett v. Houston Northwest Medical Center, 689 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Ethington v. Stategreen1 sentence1992In Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), the Court of Criminal Appeals detailed the proper procedure for preserving error in such instances: In general, Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 103(a)(1) and Tex.R.App.P. 52 govern preservation of error concerning the admission of evidence in criminal cases. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montez v. State
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 310 (citing Jacobs v. State , 787 S.W.2d 397, 405 (Tex. Crim. 2012Id. at 310 (citing Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d 397, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.1990)). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
In Re AP
green
2 sentences2002In A.P., the court reasoned, “To terminate parental rights when there is insufficient evidence only because the complaint was not preserved does not adhere to Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process.” A.P., 42 S.W.3d at 255 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)). 2002In A.P., the court reasoned, "To terminate parental rights when there is insufficient evidence only because the complaint was not preserved does not adhere to Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process." A.P., 42 S.W.3d at 255 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct.1388, 1394, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Sturgeon v. State
green
1 sentence2020Sturgeon v. State, 106 S.W.3d 81, 85 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.