80 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1974–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
John C. Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enterprises, Inc. And Jack Andersongreen2 sentences2021In WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a three- part test to determine if an individual is a limited public figure. (1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and (3) the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy. 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998) (citing Trotter v. Jack Anderson 2011McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 571 (quoting Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enters., Inc., 818 F.2d 431, 433-34 (5th Cir.1987)). | 3 | 3 |
WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemoregreen2 sentences2021In WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a three- part test to determine if an individual is a limited public figure. (1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and (3) the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy. 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998) (citing Trotter v. Jack Anderson 2011Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 88 (1966); WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998). -6- 04-10-00311-CV The Texas Supreme Court applies the three part test adopted by the Fifth Circuit to determine whether an individual is a limited-purpose public figure: (1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and (3) the alleged defamatio | 2 | 4 |
Labelle v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See id. 1999See id. | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 688 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009). 2011See Williams v. State , 301 S.W.3d 675, 688 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009). | 2 | 2 |
Hartman v. Stategreen2 sentences1999He contends that under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 2 and Hartman v. State, 946 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), breath test results are scientific evidence and as such the evidence must be proven reliable by satisfying a three part test: (1) the underlying scientific theory must be valid; (2) the technique applying the theory must be valid; and (3) the technique must have been *838 properly applied on the occasion in question. 1999See Hartman, 946 S.W.2d at 62 . | 2 | 2 |
Welch v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); Welch v. State, 335 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], pet ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Robert McGruder v. Steven W. Puckettgreen1 sentence2024See McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); Welch v. State, 335 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], pet ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Presbytery Of New Jersey Of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church v. Whitmangreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
Baggett v. Bullittgreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
High Ol' Times, Inc. v. George Busbee, Governor of Georgiagreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
William Pietzsch v. Jim Mattoxgreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
cluster 429418green1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
United Fence & Guard Rail Corp. v. Mario M. Cuomo, Franklin E. White, Horace M. Flowers, Howard L. Sheffeygreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
Bellotti v. Bairdgreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
Lehman v. City of Louisvillegreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau Chemco, Inc. Wesco, Inc. v. City of Los Angelesgreen1 sentence2016The Second Circuit has a three-part test for Pullman abstention: (1) unclear state law; (2) a constitutional issue based on the construction of the unclear state law; and (3) the unclear state law susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that would avoid the constitutional issue.696 The Third Circuit also has a three part test, with the first two elements embracing the Cuomo test, and a third directed to "state interest": (1) unclear state law underlying federal constitutional claims; (2) subject to state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow the scope | 1 | 1 |
JVA Operating Co. v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co.green1 sentence2015In Madden v. State, The Court of Criminal Appeals has set out a three part test for determining whether or not to include a 38.23(a) instruction. 242 11 S.W.3d 504, 510 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rosenblatt v. Baergreen1 sentence2011Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 88 (1966); WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998). -6- 04-10-00311-CV The Texas Supreme Court applies the three part test adopted by the Fifth Circuit to determine whether an individual is a limited-purpose public figure: (1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and (3) the alleged defamatio | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. City of Houstongreen1 sentence2011Steele v. City of Houston, 603 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex. 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appealsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fentis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bush v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tippins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phillips v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Texasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ibn-Tamas v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| D'Ambra v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2024Under the three part test originally set forth in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S. Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), the proportionality of a sentence is evaluated by considering (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. 2024Under the three part test originally set forth in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S. Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), the proportionality of a sentence is evaluated by considering (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. | 49 | 2006–2024 |
Little v. State
green
2 sentences2009The three part test used to determine if a prosecutor's actions have violated due process asks "whether the prosecutor 1) failed to disclose evidence, 2) favorable to the accused, and 3) the evidence is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Little , 991 S.W.2d at 866 . 2009The three part test used to determine if a prosecutor’s actions have violated due process asks “whether the prosecutor 1) failed to disclose evidence, 2) favorable to the accused, and 3) the evidence is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Little, 991 S.W.2d at 866 . | 3 | 2009–2011 |
Eric Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc
green
2 sentences2021In WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a three- part test to determine if an individual is a limited public figure. (1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and (3) the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy. 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998) (citing Trotter v. Jack Anderson 2012Cir. 1980), Scripps claims that “[s]ometimes position alone can make a public figure.” See Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1298–1300 (finding that the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure and setting out that the three-part test applies).5 Scripps appears to argue that this Court does not need to engage in the three- part test in order to determine whether Carter is a limited-purpose public figure because Carter’s status as CEO of the Chamber of Commerce alone made him a limited- purpose public figure. | 2 | 2012–2021 |
Harmelin v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2017The application of the Solem test has been modified by Texas courts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 , 115 L. 2017The application of the Solem test has been modified by Texas courts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 , 115 L. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
City of Houston v. Scottish Rite Benevolent Ass'n
green
2 sentences2017This standard *469 requires an organization to meet a three part test: (1) the organization must make no gain or profit; (2) it must be "organized to accomplish ends wholly benevolent by engaging in humanitarian services maintained to care for the physical or mental well-being of its recipients"; and (3) "[t]he total operation of the charity must affect all the people of a community or state by assuming, to a material extent, services which otherwise might devolve to and become the obligations of the community or state." N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. , 804 S.W.2d at 899 (citing City of McAllen v 2017This standard *469 requires an organization to meet a three part test: (1) the organization must make no gain or profit; (2) it must be "organized to accomplish ends wholly benevolent by engaging in humanitarian services maintained to care for the physical or mental well-being of its recipients"; and (3) "[t]he total operation of the charity must affect all the people of a community or state by assuming, to a material extent, services which otherwise might devolve to and become the obligations of the community or state." N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. , 804 S.W.2d at 899 (citing City of McAllen v | 2 | 1974–2017 |
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126 . 2002Id. at 382 citing (Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126 ). | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co.
green
1 sentence2019Retamco, 278 S.W.3d at 339 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Willacy County Appraisal District
green
1 sentence2017This standard *469 requires an organization to meet a three part test: (1) the organization must make no gain or profit; (2) it must be "organized to accomplish ends wholly benevolent by engaging in humanitarian services maintained to care for the physical or mental well-being of its recipients"; and (3) "[t]he total operation of the charity must affect all the people of a community or state by assuming, to a material extent, services which otherwise might devolve to and become the obligations of the community or state." N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. , 804 S.W.2d at 899 (citing City of McAllen v | 1 | 2017–2017 |
City of McAllen v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
green
2 sentences2017This standard *469 requires an organization to meet a three part test: (1) the organization must make no gain or profit; (2) it must be "organized to accomplish ends wholly benevolent by engaging in humanitarian services maintained to care for the physical or mental well-being of its recipients"; and (3) "[t]he total operation of the charity must affect all the people of a community or state by assuming, to a material extent, services which otherwise might devolve to and become the obligations of the community or state." N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. , 804 S.W.2d at 899 (citing City of McAllen v 2017Applying the first factor, "[t]he law is well settled that the proscription against an institution's realization of 'gain or profit' refers to gain or profit by private individuals or the accrual of distributable profits." City of McAllen , 530 S.W.2d at 809 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
San Antonio Conservation Society, Inc. v. City of San Antonio
green
1 sentence2017This standard *469 requires an organization to meet a three part test: (1) the organization must make no gain or profit; (2) it must be "organized to accomplish ends wholly benevolent by engaging in humanitarian services maintained to care for the physical or mental well-being of its recipients"; and (3) "[t]he total operation of the charity must affect all the people of a community or state by assuming, to a material extent, services which otherwise might devolve to and become the obligations of the community or state." N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. , 804 S.W.2d at 899 (citing City of McAllen v | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Scott
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 382 citing (Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Thomas v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Opdahl v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Landers v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Wallace v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| McKay v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Ramirez v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Miller v. California green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Landreth v. Reed green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| City of Amarillo v. Amarillo Lodge No. 731, AF & AM green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.
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.