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.
16 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martinets v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319 ; Martinets v. State , 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.–Austin 1994, no pet.). 1995“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to establish an accused’s knowledge of contraband and his control over it, the existing body of law describing affirmative links between a defendant and contraband is an appropriate means of applying the Jackson rationality standard of review.” Id. | 9 | 10 |
Lassaint v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Lassaint, 79 S.W.3d at 740 (citing Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 34 185, 188 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, no pet.); Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995)); See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 201Q)(Jackson standard controls in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence challenges). 2009Lassaint v. State , 79 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). | 2 | 3 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Wright v. State, 930 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Lassaint, 79 S.W.3d at 740 (citing Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 34 185, 188 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, no pet.); Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995)); See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 201Q)(Jackson standard controls in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence challenges). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Eaglin defined circumstantial evidence as "direct proof of a secondary fact which, by logical inference, demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proven." Eaglin, 872 S.W.2d at 336 (citing Taylor v. State, 684 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)). 1994Eaglin defined circumstantial evidence as “direct proof of a secondary fact which, by logical inference, demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proven.” Eaglin, 872 S.W.2d at 336 (citing Taylor v. State, 684 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2015Belt v. State,485 S.W.2d39,42hn2(Ga.App.1997,no pet.) “Belt's two enumerations challenging the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 *** This testimony contradicted Belt's claim of duress. 2015Belt v. State,485 S.W.2d39,42hn2(Ga.App.1997,no pet.) “Belt's two enumerations challenging the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 *** This testimony contradicted Belt's claim of duress. | 5 | 2003–2015 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2015Lassaint, 79 S.W.3d at 740 (citing Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 34 185, 188 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, no pet.); Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995)); See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 201Q)(Jackson standard controls in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence challenges). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Eaglin v. State
green
2 sentences1994Eaglin defined circumstantial evidence as "direct proof of a secondary fact which, by logical inference, demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proven." Eaglin, 872 S.W.2d at 336 (citing Taylor v. State, 684 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)). 1994Eaglin defined circumstantial evidence as “direct proof of a secondary fact which, by logical inference, demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proven.” Eaglin, 872 S.W.2d at 336 (citing Taylor v. State, 684 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.