11 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Elite Towing, Inc. v. LSI Financial Groupgreen2 sentences2001Because the record does not contain a request for an evidentiary hearing, Smith's uncontested denial that he received notice also overcomes any inference that, because someone at the prison other than Smith signed the green card, he received the notice. (4) There is no showing in the record that the signatory's receipt of the notice can be imputed to Smith as it was in Elite Towing, Inc. v. LSI Financial Group , 985 S.W.2d 635, 643 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, no pet.). 2001Because the record does not contain a request for an evidentiary hearing, Smith's uncontested denial that he received notice also overcomes any inference that, because someone at the prison other than Smith signed the green card, he received the notice. (4) There is no showing in the record that the signatory's receipt of the notice can be imputed to Smith as it was in Elite Towing, Inc. v. LSI Financial Group , 985 S.W.2d 635, 643 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 . 2021Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 . | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Rufino Falcongreen1 sentence2015United States v. Falcon, 347 F.3d 1000, 1004-05 (7th Cir. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Leif Taylor v. Thomas M. Maddox, Interim Director George Galaza Cal Terhunegreen1 sentence2015"Where a state court makes evidentiary findings without holding a hearing and giving the petitioner an oppurtunity to present evidence, such findings clearly result in an 'unreasonable determination' of the facts." Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th.Cir.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Rozell v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See id. at 231 . | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Wallace , 106 S.W.3d at 108 . | 1 | 1 |
Reyes v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Therefore, the record does not reflect that the notary was an attorney representing appellant at the time the affidavits were sworn. [4] See Edwards v. State , 37 S.W.3d 511, 514 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d ); Brooks v. State , 894 S.W.2d 843, 847 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, no pet.); Martin v. State , 823 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref’d ). [5] The trial court’s docket sheet reflects presentment of appellant’s motion for new trial but not a request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. [6] Compare Martinez , 2002 WL 662532 at *2 (holding sufficient an affidavit statin | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Therefore, the record does not reflect that the notary was an attorney representing appellant at the time the affidavits were sworn. [4] See Edwards v. State , 37 S.W.3d 511, 514 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d ); Brooks v. State , 894 S.W.2d 843, 847 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, no pet.); Martin v. State , 823 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref’d ). [5] The trial court’s docket sheet reflects presentment of appellant’s motion for new trial but not a request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. [6] Compare Martinez , 2002 WL 662532 at *2 (holding sufficient an affidavit statin | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Therefore, the record does not reflect that the notary was an attorney representing appellant at the time the affidavits were sworn. [4] See Edwards v. State , 37 S.W.3d 511, 514 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d ); Brooks v. State , 894 S.W.2d 843, 847 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, no pet.); Martin v. State , 823 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref’d ). [5] The trial court’s docket sheet reflects presentment of appellant’s motion for new trial but not a request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. [6] Compare Martinez , 2002 WL 662532 at *2 (holding sufficient an affidavit statin | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Therefore, the record does not reflect that the notary was an attorney representing appellant at the time the affidavits were sworn. [4] See Edwards v. State , 37 S.W.3d 511, 514 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d ); Brooks v. State , 894 S.W.2d 843, 847 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, no pet.); Martin v. State , 823 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref’d ). [5] The trial court’s docket sheet reflects presentment of appellant’s motion for new trial but not a request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. [6] Compare Martinez , 2002 WL 662532 at *2 (holding sufficient an affidavit statin | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2002App. 1993) (same), with King v. State , 29 S.W.3d 556, 568-69 (Tex. Crim . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Walkergreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Ex parte Walker, 777 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). 1 Because appellant may raise the issue in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, the request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. 2 1 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. State
green
1 sentence2002Therefore, the record does not reflect that the notary was an attorney representing appellant at the time the affidavits were sworn. [4] See Edwards v. State , 37 S.W.3d 511, 514 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d ); Brooks v. State , 894 S.W.2d 843, 847 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, no pet.); Martin v. State , 823 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref’d ). [5] The trial court’s docket sheet reflects presentment of appellant’s motion for new trial but not a request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. [6] Compare Martinez , 2002 WL 662532 at *2 (holding sufficient an affidavit statin | 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.