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.
15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ortiz v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Generally, it is an appellant’s “burden to present a record showing properly preserved, reversible error.” Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646 , 651-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Ortiz v. State, 144 S.W.3d 225, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (en banc) (noting an appellant’s “burden of presenting a record to show error requiring reversal insofar as he is required to develop the record to show the nature and source of an error and, in some cases, its prejudice to him”). 2022App. 2011); see also Ortiz v. State, 144 S.W.3d 225, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (en banc) (holding that an appellant has a “burden of presenting a record to show error requiring reversal insofar as he is required to develop the record to show the nature and 7 source of an error and, in some cases, its prejudice to him”). | 8 | 8 |
Christiansen v. Prezelskigreen1 sentence2024See id. | 1 | 1 |
Diaz-Galvan v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Diaz-Galvan v. State, 942 S.W.2d 185, 186 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); Applewhite v. State, 872 S.W.2d 82 , 38 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (“The burden is on appellant, or other party seeking review, to see that a sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., Inc.green1 sentence1994Tex.R.App.P. 50(d); Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., 739 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.1987) (appellant had the burden to file statement of facts of hearing on ad litem fees to show abuse of discretion). | 1 | 1 |
Chappell Hills, Inc. v. Boatwrightgreen1 sentence1990Petitt v. Laware, 715 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Chappell Hills, Inc. v. Boatwright, 702 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Petitt v. Lawaregreen1 sentence1990Petitt v. Laware, 715 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Chappell Hills, Inc. v. Boatwright, 702 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Word v. State
green
1 sentence2024Generally, it is an appellant’s “burden to present a record showing properly preserved, reversible error.” Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646 , 651-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Ortiz v. State, 144 S.W.3d 225, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (en banc) (noting an appellant’s “burden of presenting a record to show error requiring reversal insofar as he is required to develop the record to show the nature and source of an error and, in some cases, its prejudice to him”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Birchfield v. Bourland
green
1 sentence1947That the general law, requiring exceptions to rulings of trial courts and notice of appeal therefrom as a condition precedent to the right of appeal, has no application in this character of case.” Also, see Birchfield v. Bourland, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W. 422, 425 , col. 1. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Young v. Dudney
green
1 sentence1947The doctrine so clearly announced in the case under consideration was foreshadowed in previous cases, as in Young v. Dudney, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W. 802, 806 , col. 2, writ refused, where the court said: “As the record shows that the order appealed from was a temporary, mandatory injunction (order), made in chambers, and not in open court or term time, and as under the law such an order could be granted, even without a hearing or notice to the adverse party, we hold that it was not necessary in this case for the record to show an exception to the ruling of the court below, or a notice of appeal | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1918It is urgently insisted that the case of Harris v. State, 76 Texas Crim. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Merrill v. Savage
green
2 sentences1911That the general law, requiring exceptions to rulings of trial courts and notice of appeal therefrom as a condition precedent to the right of appeal, has no application in this character of case, see the case of Merrill et al. v. Savage et al., 49 Tex. Civ. 1911That the general law, requiring exceptions to rulings of trial courts and notice of appeal therefrom as a condition precedent to the right of appeal, has no application in this character of case, see *Page 807 the case of Merrill et al. v. Savage et al., 49 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Jeff Chaison Townsite Co. v. McFaddin, Wiess & Kyle Land Co.
green
1 sentence1911The above construction of the act of 1909 is, we think, sustained by the case of Jeff Chaison Townsite Co. v. McFaddin, Weiss & Kyle Land Company, 121 S. W. 716 . [2, 3] As the record shows that the order appealed from was a temporary, mandatory injunction (order), made in chambers, and not in open court or term time, and as under the law such an order could be granted, even without a hearing or notice to the adverse party, we hold that it was not necessary in this case for the record to show an exception to the ruling of the court below, or a notice of an appeal therefrom; nor was it necessar | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.