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 1970–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2006We footnoted Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 475-76 , 113 S.Ct. 892 , 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), in which the Supreme Court stated, "We do not read Penry as effecting a sea change in this Court’s view of the constitutionality of the former Texas death penalty statute; it does not broadly suggest the invalidity of the special issues framework." Id. at 474, 113 S.Ct. 892 (emphasis in original). 2006We footnoted Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 475-76 , 113 S.Ct. 892 , 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), in which the Supreme Court stated, "We do not read Penry as effecting a sea change in this Court’s view of the constitutionality of the former Texas death penalty statute; it does not broadly suggest the invalidity of the special issues framework." Id. at 474, 113 S.Ct. 892 (emphasis in original). | 3 | 5 |
Smith v. Texasgreen2 sentences2010LaRoyce Smith v. Texas, 550 U.S. 297, 313-14 , 127 S.Ct. 1686 , 167 L.Ed.2d 632 (2007) (LaRoyce Smith II) (finding constitutional error in the special issues and error preserved upon objection to the special issues, *63 despite lack of objection to the nullification instruction). 52 . 2010Laroyce Smith v. Texas , 550 U.S. 297, 313-14 (2007) ( Laroyce Smith II ) (finding constitutional error in the special issues and error preserved upon objection to the special issues, despite lack of objection to the nullification instruction). 52. | 2 | 3 |
Smith v. Statered2 sentences2019See Smith v. State, 919 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex. Crim. 2017See Smith v. State, 919 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lane
red
2 sentences1994Indeed, any such reading of Penry would be inconsistent with the Court’s conclusion in that case that it was not announcing a “new rule” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, [ 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989)].... 1994Indeed, any such reading of Penry would be inconsistent with the Court’s conclusion in that case that it was not announcing a “new rule” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, [ 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989)].... | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Green v. Missouri
green
2 sentences1988In his eleventh point of error (first point of error in counsel Lane’s brief), appellant contends that the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to charge the jury at punishment that they could not rely on the law of parties in answering the special issues in violation of Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034 , 105 S.Ct. 1407 , 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985). 1988In his eleventh point of error (first point of error in counsel Lane’s brief), appellant contends that the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to charge the jury at punishment that they could not rely on the law of parties in answering the special issues in violation of Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034 , 105 S.Ct. 1407 , 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences1988In his eleventh point of error (first point of error in counsel Lane's brief), appellant contends that the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to charge the jury at punishment that they could not rely on the law of parties in answering the special issues in violation of Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034 , 105 S.Ct. 1407 , 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985). 1988In his eleventh point of error (first point of error in counsel Lane’s brief), appellant contends that the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to charge the jury at punishment that they could not rely on the law of parties in answering the special issues in violation of Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1034 , 105 S.Ct. 1407 , 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Biggers v. Continental Bus System, Inc.
green
2 sentences1970Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351 , 298 S.W.2d 79 , 303 S. W.2d 359 (1957). 1970Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351 , 298 S.W.2d 79 , 303 S. W.2d 359 (1957). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Biggers v. Continental Bus System, Inc.
green
1 sentence1970Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351 , 298 S.W.2d 79 , 303 S. W.2d 359 (1957). | 1 | 1970–1970 |