11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Megas v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See 68 S.W.3d at 237 . | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen1 sentence2022“Intent to use the hands as deadly weapons is not required.” Id. at 473 (citing Clark v. State, 886 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no pet.)). “[T]he injuries, if any, inflicted on a complainant are factors to be considered in determining whether a hand was used as a deadly weapon.” Davis, 533 S.W.3d at 508 (citing Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191 ). | 1 | 1 |
Tovar v. Stategreen1 sentence2016ISSUE ON APPEAL In a single issue, appellant argues: “The trial court erred by not admitting statements made by the complainant under the rule of optional completeness.” APPLICABLE LAW “The standard of review for a trial court’s ruling under the Rules of Evidence is abuse of discretion.” Tovar v. State, 221 S.W.3d 185, 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (citing Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116, 120 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Sauceda v. Stategreen1 sentence2016ISSUE ON APPEAL In a single issue, appellant argues: “The trial court erred by not admitting statements made by the complainant under the rule of optional completeness.” APPLICABLE LAW “The standard of review for a trial court’s ruling under the Rules of Evidence is abuse of discretion.” Tovar v. State, 221 S.W.3d 185, 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (citing Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116, 120 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Shafer v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Shafer v. State , 82 S.W.3d 553, 557 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d) (holding that when only purpose of new evidence is to impeach witness’s trial testimony, this is “an impermissible reason to grant a second trial based on new evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lane v. State
green
2 sentences2022“Intent to use the hands as deadly weapons is not required.” Id. at 473 (citing Clark v. State, 886 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no pet.)). “[T]he injuries, if any, inflicted on a complainant are factors to be considered in determining whether a hand was used as a deadly weapon.” Davis, 533 S.W.3d at 508 (citing Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191 ). 2022“Intent to use the hands as deadly weapons is not required.” Id. at 473 (citing Clark v. State, 886 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no pet.)). “[T]he injuries, if any, inflicted on a complainant are factors to be considered in determining whether a hand was used as a deadly weapon.” Davis, 533 S.W.3d at 508 (citing Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191 ). | 3 | 2017–2022 |
Fisher v. State
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2002Id. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025He brings five issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying 04-23-00468-CR - his requested jury instruction as to mistake of fact; (2) whether he was given inadequate admonitions regarding pro se representation; (3) whether the State failed to give him medical records pertaining to the complainant in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (4) whether he was denied access to the court; and (5) whether the trial court’s errors were harmful because of their cumulative effect. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2022“Intent to use the hands as deadly weapons is not required.” Id. at 473 (citing Clark v. State, 886 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no pet.)). “[T]he injuries, if any, inflicted on a complainant are factors to be considered in determining whether a hand was used as a deadly weapon.” Davis, 533 S.W.3d at 508 (citing Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McCain v. State
green
1 sentence2019“But the injuries, if any, inflicted on a complainant are factors to be considered in determining whether a hand was used as a deadly weapon.” Id. (citing Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Long v. State
red
2 sentences1990The court of appeals' reversal was premised on the admittance of a videotaped interview of the complainant in violation of our holding in Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr. 1990The court of appeals’ reversal was premised on the admittance of a videotaped interview of the complainant in violation of our holding in Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cer t. denied, 485 U.S. 993 , 108 S.Ct. 1301 , 99 L.Ed.2d 511 (1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Shimoda v. Akao
red
2 sentences1990App.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993 , 108 S.Ct. 1301 , 99 L.Ed.2d 511 (1988). 1990The court of appeals’ reversal was premised on the admittance of a videotaped interview of the complainant in violation of our holding in Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cer t. denied, 485 U.S. 993 , 108 S.Ct. 1301 , 99 L.Ed.2d 511 (1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Baja Contractors, Inc. v. City of Chicago
red
2 sentences1990The court of appeals’ reversal was premised on the admittance of a videotaped interview of the complainant in violation of our holding in Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cer t. denied, 485 U.S. 993 , 108 S.Ct. 1301 , 99 L.Ed.2d 511 (1988). 1990The court of appeals’ reversal was premised on the admittance of a videotaped interview of the complainant in violation of our holding in Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cer t. denied, 485 U.S. 993 , 108 S.Ct. 1301 , 99 L.Ed.2d 511 (1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Sanders v. Cauley
neutral
1 sentence1931App. 261 , 113 S. W. 560 , the court said equity will not aid a complainant if his claim grows out of or depends on or is inseparably connected with his own prior fraud or misconduct. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.