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 1 courts 2002–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Isaacs v. Bishopgreen2 sentences2010See id. (citing Tex.R.App. 2010See id. (citing TEX . | 2 | 2 |
Jordan v. Bustamantegreen2 sentences2007See Jordan v. Bustamante , 158 S.W.3d 29, 39-40 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (Limitations provision in section 33.54 barred action challenging tax sale purchaser's title.). 2007See Jordan v. Bustamante, 158 S.W.3d 29, 39-40 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (Limitations provision in section 33.54 barred action challenging tax sale purchaser’s title.). | 2 | 2 |
Steven Gregory Sloat, Ed Bryan, Church of Scientology International, David J. Lubow, and Monty Drake v. Monique Rathbungreen1 sentence2021See Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at 504 . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Ellisgreen1 sentence2018See also Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71, 79 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. City of Tomballgreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Edwards v. City of Tomball, 343 S.W.3d 213, 223 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). 17 We overrule the portion of Harrison’s issue relating to his request to replead. | 1 | 1 |
McCollum v. Mt. Ararat Baptist Church, Inc.green1 sentence2002See McCollum , 980 S.W.2d at 537 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2002Hubenak, 65 S.W.3d at 797 ; Schmidt , at 545, n. 1. 2 Here, the trial court initially found in favor of ExxonMobil, but subsequently granted Harrison’s plea to the jurisdiction on the authority of Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., Nos. 01-99-00691-CV, 01-99-00959-CV, 01-99-01359-CV and 01-99-01360-CV, 2000 WL 1056416 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 27, 2000), opinion withdrawn and superseded on rehearing, 65 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. filed). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Weise
green
1 sentence2018Here, like in Ingram, 533 S.W.3d 893–94, and Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 620 , Harrison’s claim is truly that the statute, via the indictment, is unconstitutional because it fails to allege a mens rea and is, thus, not cognizable on pretrial habeas. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Harrison v. State
green
2 sentences2012Citing Lee v. State, 340 Ark. 504 , 11 S.W.3d 553 (2000), this court emphasized that “in matters dealing with the prosecution’s failure to disclose prior convictions, the crucial issue is whether the appellant was prejudiced by the failure to disclose.” Harrison, 371 Ark. at 658 , 269 S.W.3d at 325 . 2012Citing Lee v. State, 340 Ark. 504 , 11 S.W.3d 553 (2000), this court emphasized that “in matters dealing with the prosecution’s failure to disclose prior convictions, the crucial issue is whether the appellant was prejudiced by the failure to disclose.” Harrison, 371 Ark. at 658 , 269 S.W.3d at 325 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2012Jones, 241 S.W.3d at 670–71. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences2012Citing Lee v. State, 340 Ark. 504 , 11 S.W.3d 553 (2000), this court emphasized that “in matters dealing with the prosecution’s failure to disclose prior convictions, the crucial issue is whether the appellant was prejudiced by the failure to disclose.” Harrison, 371 Ark. at 658 , 269 S.W.3d at 325 . 2012Citing Lee v. State, 340 Ark. 504 , 11 S.W.3d 553 (2000), this court emphasized that “in matters dealing with the prosecution’s failure to disclose prior convictions, the crucial issue is whether the appellant was prejudiced by the failure to disclose.” Harrison, 371 Ark. at 658 , 269 S.W.3d at 325 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.
green
2 sentences2002Hubenak, 65 S.W.3d at 797 ; Schmidt , at 545, n. 1. 2 Here, the trial court initially found in favor of ExxonMobil, but subsequently granted Harrison’s plea to the jurisdiction on the authority of Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., Nos. 01-99-00691-CV, 01-99-00959-CV, 01-99-01359-CV and 01-99-01360-CV, 2000 WL 1056416 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 27, 2000), opinion withdrawn and superseded on rehearing, 65 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. filed). 2002Hubenak, 65 S.W.3d at 797 ; Schmidt , at 545, n. 1. 2 Here, the trial court initially found in favor of ExxonMobil, but subsequently granted Harrison’s plea to the jurisdiction on the authority of Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., Nos. 01-99-00691-CV, 01-99-00959-CV, 01-99-01359-CV and 01-99-01360-CV, 2000 WL 1056416 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 27, 2000), opinion withdrawn and superseded on rehearing, 65 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. filed). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.