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 1973–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Stategreen2 sentences2024It “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties.” Id. “[C]ollateral estoppel requires that the precise fact[s] litigated in the first prosecution have arisen in the same transaction, occurrence, situation, or criminal episode that gave rise to the second prosecution.” Murphy v. State, 239 S.W.3d 791, 795 (Tex. Crim. 2024It “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties.” Id. “[C]ollateral estoppel requires that the precise fact[s] litigated in the first prosecution have arisen in the same transaction, occurrence, situation, or criminal episode that gave rise to the second prosecution.” Murphy v. State, 239 S.W.3d 791, 795 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Ashe v. Swensongreen2 sentences2024Collateral estoppel “stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice.” Ashe, 397 U.S. at 443 . 2024Collateral estoppel “stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice.” Ashe, 397 U.S. at 443 . | 1 | 7 |
Ladner v. Stategreen1 sentence2011“The doctrine of collateral estop-pel is a child of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.” Ex parte Ueno, 971 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, pet. ref'd) (citing Ladner v. State, 780 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)). ‘Collateral estoppel’ is an awkward phrase, but it stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.green1 sentence2011See Robinson, 335 S.W.3d at 171 (Wainwright, J., dissenting) (“For, at the core of the vested rights doctrine lies an extremely important principle—the constitutional retroactivity doctrine does not protect an asserted entitlement to property one does not own, and until a final judgment in a case, we do not know whether the lawsuit will prove or refute a claim to recover.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Uenogreen1 sentence2011“The doctrine of collateral estop-pel is a child of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.” Ex parte Ueno, 971 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, pet. ref'd) (citing Ladner v. State, 780 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)). ‘Collateral estoppel’ is an awkward phrase, but it stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. | 1 | 1 |
West v. Solitogreen2 sentences1992West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1978). 1992West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sutton v. State
green
1 sentence1973It means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties.” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Sutton v. State, 495 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.