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 1990–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Youngkin v. Hinesgreen2 sentences2026Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 679 (describing three-step analysis under prior version of TCPA). 2023Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 679 (describing three-step analysis under prior version of TCPA). | 4 | 4 |
Rhoades v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Rhoades v. State , 934 S.W.2d 113, 123 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). 2003See Rhoades v. State , 934 S.W.2d 113, 123 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). | 4 | 4 |
Levatino v. Apple Tree Café Touring, Inc.green1 sentence2023Code § 27.003(a); Levatino v. Apple Tree Cafe Touring, Inc., 486 S.W.3d 724, 727 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pet. denied)). 6 Our review of a trial court’s ruling on a TCPA motion to dismiss requires a three- step analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Rushing v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Attorney McCray also had a duty to know the three step requirement "be fore juvenile can be tried as an adult are a transfer hearing, an examiningh trial, and a grand jury's deliberation; trial may then follow; if one of those steps is omitted or rendered void by a jurisdictional defect, there can be no jurisdiction to proceed with the next step." See Watson v. State, 587 S.W. 2d 161 ; Rushing v. State, 50 S.W.3d 715 (Tex.App. —Waco 2001). 2017See Watson, and Rushing, supra. In conjunction with the criminal docket, there was no examining trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watson v. State
green
1 sentence2017Attorney McCray also had a duty to know the three step requirement "be fore juvenile can be tried as an adult are a transfer hearing, an examiningh trial, and a grand jury's deliberation; trial may then follow; if one of those steps is omitted or rendered void by a jurisdictional defect, there can be no jurisdiction to proceed with the next step." See Watson v. State, 587 S.W. 2d 161 ; Rushing v. State, 50 S.W.3d 715 (Tex.App. —Waco 2001). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
HARLEY ROGERS, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SUPERIOR METAL, INC., RANDY MUELLER, and JONATHAN HOLTZMAN
green
1 sentence2017Bushman, 480 S.W.3d at 673 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2015Application of Law to the Present Record Appellant urges this court to hold that the three step analysis established in Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986), applies to jury shuffles. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
green
1 sentence1990In determining whether the federal doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable in the present case, we adopt the three step analysis set forth in Parklane Hosiery Co., 439 U.S. at 326 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. at 649 n. 5. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.