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 1988–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Wheelergreen1 sentence2019See Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317, 322 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Whitaker v. Stategreen2 sentences2019The testimony cited does not describe extraneous bad acts contemplated by rule 404, and therefore is not violative of the limine order, and appellant did not object to the evidence based on an alleged limine violation in any event. 7 Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim. 2019The testimony cited does not describe extraneous bad acts contemplated by rule 404, and therefore is not violative of the limine order, and appellant did not object to the evidence based on an alleged limine violation in any event. 7 Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weidner v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 364-65 . 2010Id. at 364-65 . | 2 | 2010–2022 |
Janney v. State
green
2 sentences2015Janney, supra, at 773 . 2015Janney, supra, at 773 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Austin v. State
green
2 sentences2015A detailed analysis of how curative measures may counter a limine violation in Austin v. State, 222 S.W.3d 801 (Tex.App.–Houston[14th Dist.] 2007, pet.ref’d). 2015Id. at 813-815 . -12- The court concluded that the limine violation was deeply prejudicial. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Wackenhut Corporation v. Jesse James Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2023After the trial court said, “I’m going to deny that motion in limine,” Summer requested “a limine instruction on that, under the circumstances.” Summer clarified that she believed Manes was “not supposed to be able to testify, as a judge,” and requested a limiting instruction, to which the trial court responded, “You bring it up or object.” “A motion in limine . . . does not preserve error on evidentiary rulings at trial because it does not seek a ruling on admissibility . . . .” Wackenhut Corp. v. Gutierrez, 453 S.W.3d 917 , 920 n.3 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam). 2023Instead, “the purpose of such a motion ‘is to prevent the asking of prejudicial questions and the making of prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury’ without seeking the trial court’s permission.” Id. (quoting Hartford Accident & Indem. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Paul Anthony Crayton v. State
green
1 sentence2019This is not an instance where it appears that the elicited testimony was “so clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or is of such a damning character as to suggest that it would be impossible to remove the harmful impression from the juror’s minds.” Crayton, 463 S.W.3d at 535 ; see also, e.g., 1 Appellant contends that the State solicited additional testimony that showed its limine violations were “persistent.” On direct examination, Norma testified that: (1) appellant fathered three children, each with a different mother; and (2) her relationship with appellant “wasn’t very healt | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Wackenhut Corp. v. Gutierrez
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 723–24. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Romero v. State
green
1 sentence2013Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 , 543–44 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Chalmers v. Gumm
green
1 sentence1988She argues that the hearing was not held “in advance of trial,” which appellant equates with the wording “before issue is joined on the merits of the case.” See Chalmers v. Gumm, 154 S.W.2d at 643 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.