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 1991–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Olivo v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (recognizing that an appellate court “has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction”). 6 the prosecution in favor of the defendant.” 7 State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morenogreen1 sentence2025See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (recognizing that an appellate court “has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction”). 6 the prosecution in favor of the defendant.” 7 State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Insurance Co.green1 sentence2024See id. | 1 | 1 |
Craig Porter v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Porter, 540 S.W.3d at 183 . | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Ass'n v. Dentongreen1 sentence2023See Denton, 897 S.W.2d at 760 (citing Baxter, 425 U.S. at 318 ). | 1 | 1 |
Baxter v. Palmigianogreen1 sentence2023See Denton, 897 S.W.2d at 760 (citing Baxter, 425 U.S. at 318 ). | 1 | 1 |
Randolph, Emanuell Glenngreen1 sentence2019See id. | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2012See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228 (acknowledging that, in a plea to the jurisdiction, the standard for reviewing evidence of jurisdictional facts mirrors the standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment evidence); see also Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814 , 816 n.7 (Tex. 2005) (stating that a trial court's grant of a traditional motion for summary judgment is reviewed under a de novo standard of review); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 (providing for a de novo review of a trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction). 2012See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-28 (Tex. 2004) (setting out that ―if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised"); County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 554-55 (Tex. 2002); Moreno v. Tex. A&M Univ.—Kingsville, 339 S.W.3d 902, 906 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. filed) (citing State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2012See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228 (acknowledging that, in a plea to the jurisdiction, the standard for reviewing evidence of jurisdictional facts mirrors the standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment evidence); see also Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814 , 816 n.7 (Tex. 2005) (stating that a trial court's grant of a traditional motion for summary judgment is reviewed under a de novo standard of review); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 (providing for a de novo review of a trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
Fortis Benefits v. Cantugreen1 sentence2012In UTB's motion to strike and in its reply to Ramos's motion for leave to file his response, UTB argued that the trial court had a ministerial duty to enforce the terms of the valid Rule 11 agreement, see Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007), and that it should not consider evidence outside the bounds of the Rule 11 agreement. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lueckgreen1 sentence2012See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-28 (Tex. 2004) (setting out that ―if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised"); County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 554-55 (Tex. 2002); Moreno v. Tex. A&M Univ.—Kingsville, 339 S.W.3d 902, 906 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. filed) (citing State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
County of Cameron v. Browngreen1 sentence2012See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-28 (Tex. 2004) (setting out that ―if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised"); County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 554-55 (Tex. 2002); Moreno v. Tex. A&M Univ.—Kingsville, 339 S.W.3d 902, 906 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. filed) (citing State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Griggs v. Capitol MacHine Works, Inc.green1 sentence2012See Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241-42 . | 1 | 1 |
Moreno v. Texas a & M University-Kingsvillegreen1 sentence2012See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-28 (Tex. 2004) (setting out that ―if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised"); County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 554-55 (Tex. 2002); Moreno v. Tex. A&M Univ.—Kingsville, 339 S.W.3d 902, 906 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. filed) (citing State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
EZ Pawn Corp. v. Manciasgreen1 sentence2012See EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
Responsive Terminal Systems, Inc. v. Boy Scouts of Americagreen1 sentence1998Responsive Terminal Sys., Inc. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 774 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Statered1 sentence1991Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (opinion on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alonzo v. State
green
2 sentences2015We disagree. •Ramos’ defense of the new trial grant on appeal rests heavily on Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). 2015Ramos’ only defense at trial was self-defense…the State contends that rendition of these apparently inconsistent verdicts is not proof that the jury believed Ramos’s self-defense claim, and that verdict inconsistency does not justify acquittal or a new trial grant on the aggravated assault charge…” Id. 2015 WL 6653231 at Slip Op 1.6 The El Paso Court of Appeals, on rehearing, stated the core issue: “Ramos’ defense of the new trial grant on appeal rests heavily on Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Ramos
green
2 sentences2015Ramos’ only defense at trial was self-defense…the State contends that rendition of these apparently inconsistent verdicts is not proof that the jury believed Ramos’s self-defense claim, and that verdict inconsistency does not justify acquittal or a new trial grant on the aggravated assault charge…” Id. 2015 WL 6653231 at Slip Op 1.6 The El Paso Court of Appeals, on rehearing, stated the core issue: “Ramos’ defense of the new trial grant on appeal rests heavily on Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). 2015Ramos’ only defense at trial was self-defense…the State contends that rendition of these apparently inconsistent verdicts is not proof that the jury believed Ramos’s self-defense claim, and that verdict inconsistency does not justify acquittal or a new trial grant on the aggravated assault charge…” Id. 2015 WL 6653231 at Slip Op 1.6 The El Paso Court of Appeals, on rehearing, stated the core issue: “Ramos’ defense of the new trial grant on appeal rests heavily on Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
San Antonio Newspaper Guild Local No. 25, and American Newspaper Guild, Afl-Cio, Clc v. San Antonio Light Division and the Hearst Corporation
green
1 sentence2011However, because the proper remedy for an ambiguous award is to remand it to the arbitrator for a full explanation and clarification, see San Antonio Newspaper Guild, 11 481 F.2d at 825 , we agree with Ramos that the trial court erred in vacating the award. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.