13 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court went on to pronounce a more straightforward rule, easily applied and predictably enforced, in United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973), when it held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable' search under that Amendment." The Court rejected the suggestion that "there must be litigated in each case the issue of whether or not there was present one of the reasons supporting the authority for a search of the person inci 2005The United States Supreme Court went on to pronounce a more straightforward rule, easily applied and predictably enforced, in United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973), when it held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable' search under that Amendment." The Court rejected the suggestion that "there must be litigated in each case the issue of whether or not there was present one of the reasons supporting the authority for a search of the person inci | 2 | 3 |
Houston v. Lackgreen2 sentences2013Here, the State offered no rebuttal evidence, despite the apparent ease with which it could have shown the date Enri-quez delivered his motion to reinstate to prison officials: As for concerns about increasing disputes and uncertainty over when a filing occurred, the [United States Supreme] Court recognized that “[t]he pro se prisoner does not anonymously drop his notice of appeal in a public mailbox — he hands it over to prison authorities who have well-developed procedures for recording the date and time at which they receive papers for mailing and who can readily dispute a prisoner’s assert 2013Here, the State offered no rebuttal evidence, despite the apparent ease with which it could have shown the date Enri-quez delivered his motion to reinstate to prison officials: As for concerns about increasing disputes and uncertainty over when a filing occurred, the [United States Supreme] Court recognized that “[t]he pro se prisoner does not anonymously drop his notice of appeal in a public mailbox — he hands it over to prison authorities who have well-developed procedures for recording the date and time at which they receive papers for mailing and who can readily dispute a prisoner’s assert | 1 | 4 |
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's Londongreen1 sentence2024See Plains Expl., 473 S.W.3d at 305 . “[W]e presume the parties intend what the words of their contract say.” Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 126 (Tex. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Plains Exploration & Production Company v. Torch Energy Advisors Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2024See Plains Expl., 473 S.W.3d at 305 . “[W]e presume the parties intend what the words of their contract say.” Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 126 (Tex. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Villegas v. Cartergreen1 sentence2006See Villegas v. Carter , 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. State
green
2 sentences2013Here, the State offered no rebuttal evidence, despite the apparent ease with which it could have shown the date Enri-quez delivered his motion to reinstate to prison officials: As for concerns about increasing disputes and uncertainty over when a filing occurred, the [United States Supreme] Court recognized that “[t]he pro se prisoner does not anonymously drop his notice of appeal in a public mailbox — he hands it over to prison authorities who have well-developed procedures for recording the date and time at which they receive papers for mailing and who can readily dispute a prisoner’s assert 2013Here, the State offered no rebuttal evidence, despite the apparent ease with which it could have shown the date Enriquez delivered his motion to reinstate to prison officials: As for concerns about increasing disputes and uncertainty over when a filing occurred, the [United States Supreme] Court recognized that “[t]he pro se prisoner does not anonymously drop his notice of appeal in a public mailbox—he hands it over to prison authorities who have well-developed procedures for recording the date and time at which they receive papers for mailing and who can readily dispute a prisoner’s assertion | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Valtierra v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sujoy GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EAST TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee
green
1 sentence2018The Fifth Circuit articulated a straightforward standard in Gupta for determining when a retaliation claim grows out of a discrimination charge: when the plaintiff claims that the defendant retaliated *499 against her for filing a discrimination charge. 654 F.2d at 413 -14 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. William Robert Rich
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1996The Court today avoids such a straightforward analysis of the bases for Dr. Whit-comb’s opinions, and in its place adopts a standard of “reliability.” 923 S.W.2d 549 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.