13 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1946–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Puente v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Puente, 888 S.W.2d at 528 ; see also Ellis v. State, 241 S.W.3d 172, 179 (Tex. 7 Muniz-Luna’s brief also indicates that the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on the burden of proof at the time that the evidence of the extraneous offenses was admitted. 2010See Puente , 888 S.W.2d at 528 ; see also Ellis v. State , 241 S.W.3d 172, 179 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2007, pet. ref'd) ("A request for a limiting instruction must inform the trial court as to what limitations should be placed upon the evidence."). | 2 | 2 |
Wells v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Puente, 888 S.W.2d at 528 ; see also Ellis v. State, 241 S.W.3d 172, 179 (Tex. 7 Muniz-Luna’s brief also indicates that the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on the burden of proof at the time that the evidence of the extraneous offenses was admitted. 2010See Puente , 888 S.W.2d at 528 ; see also Ellis v. State , 241 S.W.3d 172, 179 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2007, pet. ref'd) ("A request for a limiting instruction must inform the trial court as to what limitations should be placed upon the evidence."). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Mhgreen1 sentence2022Code § 700.1309 (3) (2022) (Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., What factors does DFPS consider when selecting the most appropriate living arrangement for a child?) (listing factors the Department considers when selecting a child’s substitute-care placement including that “[s]iblings removed from their home should be placed together unless such placement would be contrary to [a sibling’s] safety or well-being”); cf. In re M.H., 319 S.W.3d 137, 154 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, no pet.) (clarifying, in conservatorship best interest analysis, that the preference that siblings be kept together does n | 1 | 1 |
Posey v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Bell - 7 In contrast, jury-charge error stems from the denial of a defendant’s right to have the trial court provide the jury with instructions correctly setting forth the “law applicable to the case.” Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Reedygreen1 sentence2015To provide effective assistance concerning plea matters, “counsel has a duty to render his best judgment to his client about What plea to enter, and that judgment should be informed by an adequate and independent investigation of the facts of the case.” Ex parte Reea’y, 282 S.W.3d 492, 500 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
William Carl Wooley v. Randy Schaffergreen1 sentence2015In 2011, this deficiency was remedied when the Legislature promulgated section 22.004(g) of the Texas Government Code, which provides that the 'supreme court shall adopt rules to provide for the dismissal of causes of action that have no basis in law or fact on motion and without evidence.' See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.004 (g) (West 2013).''). 23 Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, reh'g overruled Oct. 9, 2014)("We must decide as a matter of first impression in this court what standard of review to apply to a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule | 1 | 1 |
NEXION HEALTH AT BEECHNUT, INC. v. Paulgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Nexion Health at Beechnut, Inc. v. Paul, 335 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss in healthcare liability case when issue was whether service had been effected properly); Singleton v. Casteel, 267 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss to determine whether official immunity applied under Texas Tort Claims Act); Harris Cnty. 2014See, e.g., Nexion Health at Beechnut, Inc. v. Paul, 335 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss in healthcare liability case when issue was whether service had been effected properly); Singleton v. Casteel, 267 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss to determine whether official immunity applied under Texas Tort Claims Act); Harris Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
Singleton v. Casteelgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Nexion Health at Beechnut, Inc. v. Paul, 335 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss in healthcare liability case when issue was whether service had been effected properly); Singleton v. Casteel, 267 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss to determine whether official immunity applied under Texas Tort Claims Act); Harris Cnty. 2014See, e.g., Nexion Health at Beechnut, Inc. v. Paul, 335 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss in healthcare liability case when issue was whether service had been effected properly); Singleton v. Casteel, 267 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss to determine whether official immunity applied under Texas Tort Claims Act); Harris Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
Coan v. Wintersgreen1 sentence1986See Coan v. Winters, 646 S.W.2d 655, 657-58 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1988Since there were no federal constitutional violations here involved, we are not bound to follow the analysis in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). 1988Since there were no federal constitutional violations here involved, we are not bound to follow the analysis in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). | 2 | 1986–1988 |
Manry v. Robison
green
1 sentence2020What rule should be applied to relicted lands below tidewater is not before us, and no opinion is expressed thereon.” Id. at 449 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Hollie Toups
green
1 sentence2015Ins., 431 S.W.3d 817 (Tex.App.- Austin 2014, no pet.); GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Toups, 429 S.W.3d at 754 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Austin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2015Ins., 431 S.W.3d 817 (Tex.App.- Austin 2014, no pet.); GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Toups, 429 S.W.3d at 754 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Halper
red
2 sentences1996Alas, the United States Supreme Court has addressed that circumstance as well and has declared that we follow the historical concept of “rough justice.” United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. at 447-48 , 109 S.Ct. at 1901-02 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 502 . 1996Alas, the United States Supreme Court has addressed that circumstance as well and has declared that we follow the historical concept of “rough justice.” United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. at 447-48 , 109 S.Ct. at 1901-02 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 502 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Self v. State
green
1 sentence1988Explaining the proper analysis to be conducted in these types of cases, Presiding Judge Onion, in Self v. State, 709 S.W.2d 662 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), wrote: “What analysis are we to follow to determine whether appellant’s confession was the fruit of his illegal warrantless arrest in violation of Chapter 14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure? | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
green
1 sentence1946In the Brown case, above, Judge Sharp used this language [ 126 Tex. 296 , 87 S.W.2d 1070 ]: “There are many factors, facts, and circumstances, which we shall not undertake to detail here, in each case and in each hearing, which must be considered, weighed, and given effect, in the fair and reasonable administration of such laws, rules, and exceptions. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Settegast v. Second National Bank
green
1 sentence1946In the Brown case, above, Judge Sharp used this language [ 126 Tex. 296 , 87 S.W.2d 1070 ]: “There are many factors, facts, and circumstances, which we shall not undertake to detail here, in each case and in each hearing, which must be considered, weighed, and given effect, in the fair and reasonable administration of such laws, rules, and exceptions. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.