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.
11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hancock v. Stategreen1 sentence1971See Hancock v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 36 , where a warning was approved which contained: “that any statements he made might and probably would be introduced against him.” Art. 38.22, V.A.C.C.P., (as amended in 1967), only requires a statement to be witnessed when the defendant is unable to write his name. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. State
green
2 sentences2007Vallez v. State , 21 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.App-San Antonio, 2000 pet. ref'd.); Shaw v. State , 539 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976). 2006Vallez v. State , 21 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.App-San Antonio, 2000 pet. ref'd.); Shaw v. State , 539 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976). | 4 | 2006–2007 |
Vallez v. State
green
2 sentences2007Vallez v. State , 21 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.App-San Antonio, 2000 pet. ref'd.); Shaw v. State , 539 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976). 2006Vallez v. State , 21 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.App-San Antonio, 2000 pet. ref'd.); Shaw v. State , 539 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976). | 4 | 2006–2007 |
King v. State
green
1 sentence2000Id. [1] In point of error three, the appellant contends defense counsel was ineffective because he did not file a motion to quash the defective indictment. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996Based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the appellant contends his defense counsel should have challenged the scientific basis of this testimony. 1996Based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the appellant contends his defense counsel should have challenged the scientific basis of this testimony. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
City of Corpus Christi v. Jones
green
1 sentence1977City of Corpus Christi v. Jones, 144 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Civ.App. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Griffin v. Holiday Inns of America
green
1 sentence1976He cites Griffin v. Holiday Inns of America, 496 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.1973). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Freeman v. McAninch
green
2 sentences1976Freeman v. McAninch, 87 Tex. 132 , 27 S.W. 97 (1894).” The appellant contends that his claim against Mr. McWilliams is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, even though the amount of his recovery against Mr. McWilliams was fixed in the divorce decree, because he then sued on quantum meruit but now bases his claim on his fee contract with Mrs. McWilliams dated January 12, 1970. 1976Freeman v. McAninch, 87 Tex. 132 , 27 S.W. 97 (1894).” The appellant contends that his claim against Mr. McWilliams is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, even though the amount of his recovery against Mr. McWilliams was fixed in the divorce decree, because he then sued on quantum meruit but now bases his claim on his fee contract with Mrs. McWilliams dated January 12, 1970. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences1974In a related ground of error, the appellant contends that no hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession was held, outside the presence of the jury, as required by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1963). 1974In a related ground of error, the appellant contends that no hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession was held, outside the presence of the jury, as required by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1963). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Baker v. State
green
1 sentence1914In Roberts v. State, 70 Texas Crim. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.