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.
12 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hanks v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Although our review is not limited to a part of the charge standing alone, “the crucial part of the charge in determining the existence of fundamental error is that part where the law is applied to the facts.” Hanks v. State, 625 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ). 2009However, when, as in this case, the jury charge contains all the required mens rea in the abstract and definition paragraphs, but fails to include an explicit mens rea in the application paragraph, we must consider whether jury charge error caused egregious harm because “the crucial part of the charge in determining the existence of fundamental error is that part where the law is applied to the facts.” Fulcher , 274 S.W.3d at 717 ; Hanks v. State , 625 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no pet.). | 7 | 7 |
American General Fire & Casualty Co. v. Weinberggreen1 sentence1992American General Fire and Casualty Company v. Weinberg, 639 S.W.2d 688, 689 (Tex.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Dailey v. Wheatgreen1 sentence1992Daily v. Wheat, 681 S.W.2d 747, 758 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref d n.r.e.); Buck v. State, 599 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), overruled on other grounds, and Rideau v. Parkem Industrial Services, Inc., 917 F.2d 892 (5th Cir.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Lillygreen2 sentences1986Co. v. Lilly, 118 Tex. 644 , 23 S.W.2d 697, 699 (1930), and Palmer v. Honea, 324 S.W.2d 929, 934 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1959, no writ), cannot be referred to in any manner to determine the existence of fundamental error that must appear on the face of the record, Le., the petition, the citation, the verdict, if any, and the judgment. 1986Co. v. Lilly, 118 Tex. 644 , 23 S.W.2d 697, 699 (1930), and Palmer v. Honea, 324 S.W.2d 929, 934 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1959, no writ), cannot be referred to in any manner to determine the existence of fundamental error that must appear on the face of the record, Le., the petition, the citation, the verdict, if any, and the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1981Williams v. State, 612 S.W.2d 934, 935 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen1 sentence1981White v. State, 610 S.W.2d 504, 507 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fulcher v. State
green
2 sentences2009However, when, as in this case, the jury charge contains all the required mens rea in the abstract and definition paragraphs, but fails to include an explicit mens rea in the application paragraph, we must consider whether jury charge error caused egregious harm because “the crucial part of the charge in determining the existence of fundamental error is that part where the law is applied to the facts.” Fulcher , 274 S.W.3d at 717 ; Hanks v. State , 625 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no pet.). 2009However, when, as in this case, the jury charge contains all the required mens rea in the abstract and definition paragraphs, but fails to include an explicit mens rea in the application paragraph, we must consider whether jury charge error caused egregious harm because “the crucial part of the charge in determining the existence of fundamental error is that part where the law is applied to the facts.” Fulcher, 274 S.W.3d at 717 ; Hanks v. State, 625 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no pet.). 15 Egregious harm is the type and level of harm that affects the very basis of th | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Allen v. State
green
1 sentence2009Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260 , 264 & n.15 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Buck v. State
green
1 sentence1992Daily v. Wheat, 681 S.W.2d 747, 758 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref d n.r.e.); Buck v. State, 599 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), overruled on other grounds, and Rideau v. Parkem Industrial Services, Inc., 917 F.2d 892 (5th Cir.1990). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Floyd Rideau, and Highlands Insurance Co., Intervenor-Appellant v. Parkem Industrial Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Daily v. Wheat, 681 S.W.2d 747, 758 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref d n.r.e.); Buck v. State, 599 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), overruled on other grounds, and Rideau v. Parkem Industrial Services, Inc., 917 F.2d 892 (5th Cir.1990). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Palmer v. Honea
neutral
1 sentence1986Co. v. Lilly, 118 Tex. 644 , 23 S.W.2d 697, 699 (1930), and Palmer v. Honea, 324 S.W.2d 929, 934 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1959, no writ), cannot be referred to in any manner to determine the existence of fundamental error that must appear on the face of the record, Le., the petition, the citation, the verdict, if any, and the judgment. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co.
neutral
1 sentence1929Gant v. Timmons, 78 Texas, 11 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Texas, 385 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Texas Civ. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Russell v. Oliver
neutral
1 sentence1929Gant v. Timmons, 78 Texas, 11 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Texas, 385 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Texas Civ. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.