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 1985–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Taylor v. State , 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex. Crim. 2002The proper method for preserving error in the denial of a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness is to make “some showing under oath to substantiate the allegations as to the expected testimony.” Taylor v. State, 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dis | 5 | 5 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2002The proper method for preserving error in the denial of a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness is to make “some showing under oath to substantiate the allegations as to the expected testimony.” Taylor v. State, 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dis 1996Baker v. State, 467 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Patterson v. State, 869 S.W.2d 429, 481 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.); Martinez v. State, 802 S.W.2d 334, 337 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd); Howard v. State, 625 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist] 1981, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Hartson v. Stategreen1 sentence2002The proper method for preserving error in the denial of a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness is to make “some showing under oath to substantiate the allegations as to the expected testimony.” Taylor v. State, 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dis | 1 | 1 |
Latham v. Stategreen1 sentence2002The proper method for preserving error in the denial of a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness is to make “some showing under oath to substantiate the allegations as to the expected testimony.” Taylor v. State, 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dis | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Stategreen1 sentence2002The proper method for preserving error in the denial of a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness is to make “some showing under oath to substantiate the allegations as to the expected testimony.” Taylor v. State, 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dis | 1 | 1 |
Outland v. Stategreen1 sentence2002The proper method for preserving error in the denial of a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness is to make “some showing under oath to substantiate the allegations as to the expected testimony.” Taylor v. State, 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dis | 1 | 1 |
Hackleman v. Stategreen1 sentence2002The proper method for preserving error in the denial of a motion for continuance based on the absence of a material witness is to make “some showing under oath to substantiate the allegations as to the expected testimony.” Taylor v. State, 612 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see Hartson v. State, 59 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Hackleman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 440, 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); Burns v. State, 923 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dis | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Wilson v. State , 819 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Baker v. State, 467 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Patterson v. State, 869 S.W.2d 429, 481 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.); Martinez v. State, 802 S.W.2d 334, 337 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd); Howard v. State, 625 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist] 1981, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Baker v. State, 467 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Patterson v. State, 869 S.W.2d 429, 481 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.); Martinez v. State, 802 S.W.2d 334, 337 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd); Howard v. State, 625 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist] 1981, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Baker v. State, 467 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Patterson v. State, 869 S.W.2d 429, 481 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.); Martinez v. State, 802 S.W.2d 334, 337 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd); Howard v. State, 625 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist] 1981, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Stategreen1 sentence1985Coe v. State, 683 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Kennedy v. State, 520 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Duran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Duran v. Stategreen1 sentence1985Coe v. State, 683 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Kennedy v. State, 520 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Duran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hajjar v. State
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Tubb v. Bartlett
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Altus
green
1 sentence1993Dayton Hudson, 715 S.W.2d at 674 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Coe v. State
green
1 sentence1985Coe v. State, 683 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Kennedy v. State, 520 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Duran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). | 1 | 1985–1985 |