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 3 courts 1916–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Villanuevagreen2 sentences2015(Exhibit 2, 4); See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. Cr. 2015(Exhibit 2, 4); See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. Cr. | 3 | 3 |
Lofton v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“If the trial court can determine from the face of the petition or the documents attached thereto that the applicant’s claim for habeas relief is ‘utterly without merit[,]’ the trial court is ‘justified in refusing to grant (issue) the writ without hearing it.’” Id. (quoting Lofton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. 2016If the trial court can determine from the face of the petition or-the documents attached thereto that the applicant’s claim for habeas relief is “utterly without merit[,]” the trial court is “justified in refusing to grant (issue) the writ-without hearing it.” Lofton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Jordangreen2 sentences2000See Ex parte Jordan , 659 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex. Crim. 2000See Ex parte Jordan, 659 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). | 2 | 2 |
Kniatt v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Robinsongreen1 sentence1989While his claim may be entertained by a habeas court, Ex parte Robinson, supra, at 555, it is so utterly without merit that upon examining the petition under Article 11.10, Y.A.C.C.P., the judge would be fully justified in refusing to grant (issue) the writ without hearing it. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Davilagreen1 sentence1987See Ex parte Davila, 718 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Purchase v. State
green
2 sentences2024In Purchase v. State, 176 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.), this Court concluded that the trial court did not reach the merits of the defendant’s application for writ of habeas corpus where the trial court (1) denied the writ without hearing evidence or argument regarding the defendant's claims and (2) did not express an opinion on the merits of the defendant’s claims. 2021In Purchase v. State, 176 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.), this Court concluded that the trial court did not reach the merits of the defendant’s application for writ of habeas corpus where the trial court (1) denied the writ without hearing evidence or argument regarding the defendant’s claims and (2) did not express an opinion on the merits of the defendant’s claims. | 3 | 2021–2024 |
Ex parte Walker
green
1 sentence2020“If the trial court can determine from the face of the petition or the documents attached thereto that the applicant’s claim for habeas relief is ‘utterly without merit[,]’ the trial court is ‘justified in refusing to grant (issue) the writ without hearing it.’” Id. (quoting Lofton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Holbein v. De La Garza
green
1 sentence1916Commissioners of Floyd County v. Nichols, 142 S. W. 37 ; Holbein v. De La Garza, 59 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Commissioners' Court of Floyd County v. Nichols
neutral
1 sentence1916Commissioners of Floyd County v. Nichols, 142 S. W. 37 ; Holbein v. De La Garza, 59 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.