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.
79 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1938–2026 62 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Terrazasgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Terrazas, 962 S.W.2d 38 , 40–42 (Tex. Crim. 2026See State v. Terrazas, 962 S.W.2d 38 , 40–42 (Tex. Crim. | 59 | 59 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 749-751 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (attenuation of the taint doctrine consistent with "obtained" language in Article 38.23); Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d at 268 (inevitable discovery doctrine inconsistent with "obtained" language in Article 38.23). 1997Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 749-751 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (attenuation of the taint doctrine consistent with “obtained” language in Article 38.23); Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d at 268 (inevitable discovery doctrine inconsistent with “obtained” language in Article 38.23). | 4 | 4 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Id. (citing Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31, 41 (Tex. Crim. 2022Id. (citing Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31, 41 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Daughertygreen2 sentences2019App. 1994) (attenuation of the taint doctrine consistent with “obtained” language in article 38.23); Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d at 272 (inevitable discovery doctrine inconsistent with “obtained” language in article 38.23). 1997Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 749-751 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (attenuation of the taint doctrine consistent with “obtained” language in Article 38.23); Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d at 268 (inevitable discovery doctrine inconsistent with “obtained” language in Article 38.23). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Christopher Andrew Penagreen1 sentence2022See Pena, 464 S.W.3d at 399 (reviewing factors to be considered in a taint analysis: “(1) the temporal proximity between the unlawful search and the given consent; (2) whether the warrantless search brought about police observation of the particular object for which consent was sought; (3) whether the search resulted from flagrant police misconduct; (4) whether the consent was volunteered or requested; (5) whether appellant was made fully aware of the right to refuse consent; and (6) whether the police purpose underlying the illegality was to obtain the consent”). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019In its briefing, the State relies on the exception recognized in Davis, 564 U.S. at 241, while openly acknowledging that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had not yet interpreted whether such exception would similarly apply given the plain language of Texas’ statutory exception. | 1 | 1 |
Woodruff v. Stategreen1 sentence2019App. 1995) (citing Morrison, 449 U.S. at 365); see also Woodruff, 330 S.W.3d at 724 (holding that dismissal is appropriate only when the suppression of evidence is insufficient to purge the taint of the violation). | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Sentence Review Division of Supreme Court of Montanagreen2 sentences2019App. 1995) (citing Morrison, 449 U.S. at 365); see also Woodruff, 330 S.W.3d at 724 (holding that dismissal is appropriate only when the suppression of evidence is insufficient to purge the taint of the violation). 2019Consequently, in determining the appropriate remedy in this case, we must determine whether we may “tailor[] relief appropriate in the circumstances to assure [Morrison] the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial” by “denying the prosecution of the fruits of its transgression.” Morrison, 449 U.S. at 665–66. | 1 | 1 |
Boyle v. Stategreen1 sentence2007App. 1986) (applying attenuation of the taint analysis and concluding that the “immediate fruits” of the illegal arrest should have been suppressed), cert. denied , 479 U.S. 1046 (1987); Boyle v. State , 820 S.W.2d 122, 133 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Roquemore v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862, 869-70 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). 2003Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862, 869-70 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1994See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). 1994See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Self v. State, 709 S.W.2d 662, 665 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Self v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Self v. State, 709 S.W.2d 662, 665 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2010The United States Supreme Court has stated, “absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate.” 31 Morrison, 449 U.S. at 365 , 101 S.Ct. 665 . 2010The United States Supreme Court has stated, “absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate.” 31 Morrison, 449 U.S. at 365 , 101 S.Ct. 665 . | 3 | 2008–2010 |
Pham v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 3 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Mungia
green
2 sentences2018Mungia, 119 S.W.3d at 816–17. 2018Mungia, 119 S.W.3d at 816–17. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Gordon v. State
green
1 sentence2007App. 1989) (noting that where search “flow[ed] directly” from appellant’s illegal arrest, the evidence was not so attenuated as to be admissible), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 921 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Gordon v. State , 801 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Minnesota v. Berndt
green
1 sentence2007App. 1986) (applying attenuation of the taint analysis and concluding that the “immediate fruits” of the illegal arrest should have been suppressed), cert. denied , 479 U.S. 1046 (1987); Boyle v. State , 820 S.W.2d 122, 133 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lewis v. Russe
green
1 sentence2007App. 1989) (noting that where search “flow[ed] directly” from appellant’s illegal arrest, the evidence was not so attenuated as to be admissible), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 921 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Gordon v. State , 801 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brick v. State
green
2 sentences1998Brick v. State, 738 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). “[I]f the illegality ... rests alone upon the violation of the statute [Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure], this may well influence the court of appeals’ assessment of the purposefulness and flagrancy of the police misconduct, and, all other factors weighing equally, could ultimately tip the balance.” Id. at 681 . 1998Brick v. State, 738 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). “[I]f the illegality ... rests alone upon the violation of the statute [Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure], this may well influence the court of appeals’ assessment of the purposefulness and flagrancy of the police misconduct, and, all other factors weighing equally, could ultimately tip the balance.” Id. at 681 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Dickey v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1938As' stated in Dickey et al. v. Jackson, Tex.Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 577, 578 , “We do not have a case wherein the taint of the error may be allocated definitely and, -so, avoided through remittitur [citing many authorities], but, the rather, one within the condemnation of the rule that curative re-mittitur ought not be permitted ‘when the error may have had an influence upon the general verdict’ ” (citing many other authorities). | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.