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.
13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2025App. 2020) (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. 2019See id. (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Ngo v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See id. (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. 2016See id. (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 6 |
Rankin v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Rankin v. State , 46 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Tex. Crim. 2002Rankin v. State, 46 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Erwin v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Sturgeon , 106 S.W.3d at 85 (citing Erwin v. State, 729 S.W.2d 709, 714 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Day v. Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'ngreen1 sentence2013Sturgeon, 106 S.W.3d at 85 (citing Erwin v. State, 729 8 S.W.2d 709, 714 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Sturgeon v. State
green
2 sentences2013Sturgeon , 106 S.W.3d at 85 (citing Erwin v. State, 729 S.W.2d 709, 714 (Tex. Crim. 2013Sturgeon, 106 S.W.3d at 85 (citing Erwin v. State, 729 8 S.W.2d 709, 714 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Victoria Norton v. State
green
1 sentence2020“In determining whether an appellant has preserved error, a reviewing court considers the context in which the objection was made and the parties’ shared understanding at that time.” Norton, 434 S.W.3d at 771 (citing Pena, 285 S.W.3d at 463–64). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pena v. State
green
1 sentence2020“In determining whether an appellant has preserved error, a reviewing court considers the context in which the objection was made and the parties’ shared understanding at that time.” Norton, 434 S.W.3d at 771 (citing Pena, 285 S.W.3d at 463–64). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Harrell v. State
green
1 sentence2008Because the Court fails to incorporate this requirement into its remand order, I dissent. . 884 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.