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 2 courts 1996–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boykin v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 2022); Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. 2023App. 2022); Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. | 6 | 8 |
Chase, Ryan Francisgreen1 sentence2024App. 2014). 34 and emergency provision.” Chase v. State, 448 S.W.3d 6, 11 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Yazdchi v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Extratextual factors include but are not limited to “(1) the object sought to be attained, (2) the circumstances under which the statute was enacted, (3) the legislative history, (4) common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects, (5) the consequences of a particular construction, (6) administrative construction of the statute, and (7) the title (caption), preamble, 13 A statute is ambiguous “when the statutory language may be understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different senses[.]” Yazdchi v. State, 428 S.W.3d 831, 838 (Tex. | 1 | 1 |
In the GUARDIANSHIP OF V.A., a Minorgreen1 sentence2020However, an appellant “may not complain of errors that do not injuriously affect it or that merely affect the rights of others.” Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex. 2000); see also In re Guardianship of V.A., 390 S.W.3d 414, 418 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“In ascertaining the plain meaning of a word, we read words and phrases in context and construe them according to the rules of grammar and usage.” Lopez v. State, 253 S.W.3d 680, 685 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Torrington Co. v. Stutzmangreen1 sentence2020However, an appellant “may not complain of errors that do not injuriously affect it or that merely affect the rights of others.” Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex. 2000); see also In re Guardianship of V.A., 390 S.W.3d 414, 418 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Price, Jimmy Dongreen1 sentence2014Appellate courts must construe a statute in accordance with the plain meaning of its text unless the language of the statute is ambiguous or the plain meaning would lead to absurd results that the legislature could not have possibly intended.20 If the language of a statute is ambiguous, or the plain meaning leads to such absurd results, then a court may consult extratextual factors.21 A statute is ambiguous when it is “reasonably susceptible to more than one understanding.”22 Extratextual factors include but are not limited to: (1) the object sought to be attained, (2) the circumstances under | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ranger Insurance Co. v. State
green
2 sentences2023ANALYSIS A. Construction of Statutes and Rules A court must construe a statute in accordance with the plain meaning of its text unless the text is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the legislature could not possibly have intended.7 In determining plain meaning, we may resort to standard dictionaries, and we apply the cannons of construction.8 If called upon to look beyond the plain meaning of the text, we look initially to statutory history, which narrowly involves looking at prior versions of the statute.9 If we need to look further in an extratextual analysis, a var 2023ANALYSIS A. Construction of Statutes and Rules A court must construe a statute in accordance with the plain meaning of its text unless the text is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the legislature could not possibly have intended.7 In determining plain meaning, we may resort to standard dictionaries, and we apply the cannons of construction.8 If called upon to look beyond the plain meaning of the text, we look initially to statutory history, which narrowly involves looking at prior versions of the statute.9 If we need to look further in an extratextual analysis, a var | 3 | 2023–2023 |
in Re State of Texas Ex Rel. Brent Smith v. Honorable Jan Soifer
green
2 sentences2023ANALYSIS A. Construction of Statutes and Rules A court must construe a statute in accordance with the plain meaning of its text unless the text is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the legislature could not possibly have intended.7 In determining plain meaning, we may resort to standard dictionaries, and we apply the cannons of construction.8 If called upon to look beyond the plain meaning of the text, we look initially to statutory history, which narrowly involves looking at prior versions of the statute.9 If we need to look further in an extratextual analysis, a var 2023ANALYSIS A. Construction of Statutes and Rules A court must construe a statute in accordance with the plain meaning of its text unless the text is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the legislature could not possibly have intended.7 In determining plain meaning, we may resort to standard dictionaries, and we apply the cannons of construction.8 If called upon to look beyond the plain meaning of the text, we look initially to statutory history, which narrowly involves looking at prior versions of the statute.9 If we need to look further in an extratextual analysis, a var | 3 | 2023–2023 |
Liverman v. State
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2020“Extratextual factors include . . . legislative history.” Liverman, 470 S.W.3d at 836 . | 2 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Holloway
green
1 sentence2013Id. 19 Because the language is plain, we do not resort to an extratextual analysis. | 1 | 2013–2013 |