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 1974–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Canalesgreen2 sentences2010Relying on In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 701 (Tex. 2001), he argues that because orders of an assigned judge who should have been removed after a timely objection are void, it would be a waste of time and judicial resources to not address the issue on an interlocutory basis. 2010Relying on In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 701 (Tex. 2001), he argues that because orders of an assigned judge who should have been removed after a timely objection are void, it would be a waste of time and judicial resources to not address the issue on an interlocutory basis.4 Interlocutory Appeals At the outset, this Court is obliged to determine issues affecting our jurisdiction over an appeal. | 4 | 4 |
Estelle v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2015Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 3 And if we take into account the docket sheet notes, it was appellant, rather than the State, that was responsible for much of the trial delay. 15 501, 512, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1697 (1976). 2011App. 1976) (stating that the accused has a right not to be tried in jail clothes because of the possible infringement of the accused's presumption of innocence); Gibson v. State, 233 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex. App.–Waco 2007, no pet.) (―Requiring a defendant to be tried in jail clothing infringes upon the fundamental right to a presumption of innocence.‖) (citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512 (1976)). | 2 | 4 |
Crouse, Lawrence Frank v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Crouse, 441 S.W.3d at 516 . | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 64.03 (West Supp. 2011); Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55, 58-9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)(holding that Article 64.03 does not require a hearing). 3 Citing Pena v. State, 226 S.W.3d 634 (Tex.App.--Waco 2007, pet. granted), rev’d on other grounds, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009), Kinney also argues that the due course of law provision under the state constitution provides a greater level of protection with respect to lost or destroyed evidence than the due process provision of the federal constitution. | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Stategreen1 sentence2011App. 1976) (stating that the accused has a right not to be tried in jail clothes because of the possible infringement of the accused's presumption of innocence); Gibson v. State, 233 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex. App.–Waco 2007, no pet.) (―Requiring a defendant to be tried in jail clothing infringes upon the fundamental right to a presumption of innocence.‖) (citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512 (1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Blardonegreen2 sentences1995Ex parte Blardone, 55 Tex.Crim. 189 , 115 S.W. 838, 840 (1909). 1995Ex parte Blardone, 55 Tex.Crim. 189 , 115 S.W. 838, 840 (1909). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Juan D. Hernandez v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences1988In Thompson, supra, the court reasoned that, to bring a defendant or accused into the courtroom while he or she is shackled or in jail uniform, in the presence of a jury, infringes upon the fundamental right to a presumption of innocence, citing Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir.1971). 1974Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1971). | 2 | 1974–1988 |
County of Dallas v. Wiland
green
1 sentence2012Relying on In the Interest of J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1994) and County of Dallas v. Wiland, 216 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. 2007), Kinney contends that he had a fundamental right to a hearing.3 However, his reliance on these cases is misplaced. 2 Article 64.03 does not require the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pena v. State
green
1 sentence2012See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 64.03 (West Supp. 2011); Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55, 58-9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)(holding that Article 64.03 does not require a hearing). 3 Citing Pena v. State, 226 S.W.3d 634 (Tex.App.--Waco 2007, pet. granted), rev’d on other grounds, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009), Kinney also argues that the due course of law provision under the state constitution provides a greater level of protection with respect to lost or destroyed evidence than the due process provision of the federal constitution. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In the Interest of J.W.T.
green
1 sentence2012Relying on In the Interest of J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1994) and County of Dallas v. Wiland, 216 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. 2007), Kinney contends that he had a fundamental right to a hearing.3 However, his reliance on these cases is misplaced. 2 Article 64.03 does not require the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pena v. State
green
1 sentence2012See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 64.03 (West Supp. 2011); Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55, 58-9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)(holding that Article 64.03 does not require a hearing). 3 Citing Pena v. State, 226 S.W.3d 634 (Tex.App.--Waco 2007, pet. granted), rev’d on other grounds, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009), Kinney also argues that the due course of law provision under the state constitution provides a greater level of protection with respect to lost or destroyed evidence than the due process provision of the federal constitution. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Thompson v. State
green
1 sentence1988In Thompson, supra, the court reasoned that, to bring a defendant or accused into the courtroom while he or she is shackled or in jail uniform, in the presence of a jury, infringes upon the fundamental right to a presumption of innocence, citing Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir.1971). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.