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.
12 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re MCS, Jr.green2 sentences2015In re M.C.S., Jr., 327 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.). 2012In re M.C.S., Jr. , 327 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.). | 6 | 6 |
In Re Aogreen2 sentences2013In re AO., 342 S.W.3d 236, 239 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, pet. denied). 2013In re A.O. , 342 S.W.3d 236, 239 (Tex. App.––Amarillo 2011, pet. denied); In re J.D.P. , 85 S.W.3d 420 , 422 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
In Re JDPgreen2 sentences2013In re A.O., 342 S.W.3d 236, 239 (Tex. App.––Amarillo 2011, pet. denied); In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420 , 422 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). 2013In re A.O. , 342 S.W.3d 236, 239 (Tex. App.––Amarillo 2011, pet. denied); In re J.D.P. , 85 S.W.3d 420 , 422 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). | 2 | 4 |
In Re LASgreen2 sentences2010In re L.A.S., 135 S.W.3d 909, 913-14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). 2010In re L.A.S., 135 S.W.3d 909, 913-14 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of R.R., a Juvenilegreen1 sentence2017Matter of M.L.M., 459 S.W.3d 120, 126 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015, no pet.); see also In re R.R., 420 S.W.3d 301, 303 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013, no pet.) (applying the criminal sufficiency standard when reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding that a juvenile engaged in delinquent conduct). | 1 | 1 |
In the MATTER OF M.L.M., a Juvenilegreen1 sentence2017Matter of M.L.M., 459 S.W.3d 120, 126 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015, no pet.); see also In re R.R., 420 S.W.3d 301, 303 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013, no pet.) (applying the criminal sufficiency standard when reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding that a juvenile engaged in delinquent conduct). | 1 | 1 |
In re R.R.green1 sentence2015In re R.R., 373 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.], 2012, pet. filed) The sole standard to be used to assess the sufficiency in criminal cases is that legal sufficiency standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979), according to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895, 912 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2015In re R.R., 373 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.], 2012, pet. filed) The sole standard to be used to assess the sufficiency in criminal cases is that legal sufficiency standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979), according to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895, 912 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2015In re R.R., 373 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.], 2012, pet. filed) The sole standard to be used to assess the sufficiency in criminal cases is that legal sufficiency standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979), according to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895, 912 (Tex. Crim. 2015In re R.R., 373 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.], 2012, pet. filed) The sole standard to be used to assess the sufficiency in criminal cases is that legal sufficiency standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979), according to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895, 912 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.