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 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gelinas, James Henrygreen2 sentences2025Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 707 (Tex. Crim. 2024Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 707 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Coleman v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2013To overcome procedural default in federal court, a federal habeas petitioner must show: (1) cause for the default and prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or (2) a resulting "fundamental miscarriage of justice,” which, in the death-penalty context, means a showing of "actual innocence of the death penalty.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); see Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 335 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). . 2013To overcome procedural default in federal court, a federal habeas petitioner must show: (1) cause for the default and prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or (2) a resulting "fundamental miscarriage of justice,” which, in the death-penalty context, means a showing of "actual innocence of the death penalty.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); see Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 335 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). . | 2 | 2 |
Chavez v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). 2002See Chavez v. State , 9 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Nava, Andres Maldonadogreen1 sentence2021See Nava, 415 S.W.3d at 298 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . | 1 | 1 |
Rogers, Williamgreen1 sentence2020See Rogers, 550 S.W.3d at 192 . | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. Carriergreen1 sentence2015DlJE DILIGHICE In Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653 ,at.662(3rd.Cir-),as several circuits have he- ld,a petitioner's diligence must merely be "due" or "reasonable" under the circumst- ances.Applicant believes he has shown:(l) cause for the procedural default and actu- al prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law or(2) that the fai- lure to consider his claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.See, Coleman v. Thompson,SOl U.S. 722,749-50(1999).The existence of "cause" ordinarily turns on some objective factor external to the petitioner.Id..at 753(citing Murray | 1 | 1 |
Sawyer v. Whitleygreen2 sentences2013To overcome procedural default in federal court, a federal habeas petitioner must show: (1) cause for the default and prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or (2) a resulting "fundamental miscarriage of justice,” which, in the death-penalty context, means a showing of "actual innocence of the death penalty.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); see Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 335 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). . 2013To overcome procedural default in federal court, a federal habeas petitioner must show: (1) cause for the default and prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or (2) a resulting "fundamental miscarriage of justice,” which, in the death-penalty context, means a showing of "actual innocence of the death penalty.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); see Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 335 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). . | 1 | 1 |
Miller-El v. Cockrellgreen2 sentences2013See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2) (to obtain COA, federal habeas petitioner must make “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (noting that, to satisfy "substantial showing” standard, petitioner must demonstrate that "jurists of reason could disagree” with the district court's resolution of his claims). . 2013See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2) (to obtain COA, federal habeas petitioner must make “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (noting that, to satisfy "substantial showing” standard, petitioner must demonstrate that "jurists of reason could disagree” with the district court's resolution of his claims). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abdnor v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 731-32 ; see also Tex. Code Crim. 2003Id. at 731-32 ; see also Tex. Code Crim. | 2 | 2003–2007 |
Almanza v. State
green
1 sentence2021See Nava, 415 S.W.3d at 298 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Marshall v. State
green
1 sentence2020Marshall, 479 S.W.3d at 843 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wilson v. Beard
green
1 sentence2015DlJE DILIGHICE In Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653 ,at.662(3rd.Cir-),as several circuits have he- ld,a petitioner's diligence must merely be "due" or "reasonable" under the circumst- ances.Applicant believes he has shown:(l) cause for the procedural default and actu- al prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law or(2) that the fai- lure to consider his claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.See, Coleman v. Thompson,SOl U.S. 722,749-50(1999).The existence of "cause" ordinarily turns on some objective factor external to the petitioner.Id..at 753(citing Murray | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ex Parte Martinez
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 904 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Graves
green
1 sentence2012E.g. , Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991) ("In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law[.]"). 5. 70 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.