11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ivory v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Ivory v. State, 632 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tex. Crim. 2015Ivory v. State, 632 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Blue v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Blue v. State , 41 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Tex. Crim. 2011See Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (plurality opin *726 ion). | 2 | 2 |
Cadd v. Stategreen2 sentences1992See Cadd v. State , 587 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tex. Crim. 1992See Cadd v. State, 587 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Smith v. State, 635 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex.App.1982, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
County of Cameron v. Browngreen1 sentence2025App.—Fort Worth 1939, writ dism’d judgm’t cor.)(italics and bold added); citing 32 Tex. Jur., par. 67, p. 105 (this statement is “sustained by numerous decisions cited”). 77 County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 558-59 (Tex. 2002). 78 Texas A&M Univ. | 1 | 1 |
Heiman v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Heiman v. State , 923 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Cadd v. State, 587 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Smith v. State, 635 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex.App.1982, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences1980See also Shaw v. State, 557 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). [3] We say that this rule "has been" considered well settled because it has recently been called into question by the United States Supreme Court's disposition of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 1980See also Shaw v. State, 557 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). [3] We say that this rule "has been" considered well settled because it has recently been called into question by the United States Supreme Court's disposition of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. Stategreen2 sentences1980See also Shaw v. State, 557 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). . 1980See also Shaw v. State, 557 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). [3] We say that this rule "has been" considered well settled because it has recently been called into question by the United States Supreme Court's disposition of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Linn Motor Co. v. Sabine Development Co.
green
1 sentence2025Indeed it has been decided that the court commits fundamental error in proceeding to a final judgment without the presence of essential parties.76 It has been long established by the Texas Supreme Court that unless the pleadings “affirmatively demonstrate an incurable jurisdictional defect” it is appropriate to reverse and remand the case to provide an opportunity to amend pleadings. 77 Plaintiffs are entitled to amend after a court rules on a plea to the jurisdiction.78 If the issue is merely a pleading deficiency, an opportunity to amend is described as “a matter of right.” 79 As such, the A | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hoobler v. State
green
1 sentence1988Before the waiver can become effective, the consent of [State’s counsel] must be obtained.” Hoobler, 730 S.W.2d at 756 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Whitlow v. State
green
2 sentences1980Whitlow, supra, holds that the trial court commits fundamental error in authorizing the jury to convict an accused of burglary where the jury charge authorizes conviction if the entry was made with the intent to commit theñ while the indictment alleges that the defendant entered and then committed theñ. 1980(Emphasis throughout this opinion is supplied by the writer unless otherwise indicated.) [2] Whitlow, supra, holds that the trial court commits fundamental error in authorizing the jury to convict an accused of burglary where the jury charge authorizes conviction if the entry was made with the intent to commit theft while the indictment alleges that the defendant entered and then committed theft. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.