78 Texas opinions name it 6 courts 1872–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re El Paso County Commissioners Courtgreen2 sentences2010No. 3, 597 S.W.2d 910, 911-12 (Tex.1980) (approving a challenge to an annexation order because suit was filed against the Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control of the commissioners court”); Tar-rant County v. Denton County, 87 S.W.3d 1 2010We have not found any case decided after Henn in which the supreme court repeated its pre- Henn language that an abuse of discretion makes a commissioners court’s order reviewable through a collateral attack. 17 Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supe | 3 | 3 |
Tarrant County v. Denton Countygreen2 sentences2010No. 3, 597 S.W.2d 910, 911-12 (Tex.1980) (approving a challenge to an annexation order because suit was filed against the Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control of the commissioners court”); Tar-rant County v. Denton County, 87 S.W.3d 1 2010We have not found any case decided after Henn in which the supreme court repeated its pre- Henn language that an abuse of discretion makes a commissioners court’s order reviewable through a collateral attack. 17 Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supe | 3 | 3 |
Martin v. Amermanred2 sentences2010No. 3, 597 S.W.2d 910, 911-12 (Tex.1980) (approving a challenge to an annexation order because suit was filed against the Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control of the commissioners court”); Tar-rant County v. Denton County, 87 S.W.3d 1 2010We have not found any case decided after Henn in which the supreme court repeated its pre- Henn language that an abuse of discretion makes a commissioners court’s order reviewable through a collateral attack. 17 Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supe | 3 | 3 |
City of Katy v. Waterburygreen2 sentences2010No. 3, 597 S.W.2d 910, 911-12 (Tex.1980) (approving a challenge to an annexation order because suit was filed against the Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control of the commissioners court”); Tar-rant County v. Denton County, 87 S.W.3d 1 2010We have not found any case decided after Henn in which the supreme court repeated its pre- Henn language that an abuse of discretion makes a commissioners court’s order reviewable through a collateral attack. 17 Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supe | 3 | 3 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 3 |
Nations v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 3 |
Paul J. Grella, Trustee v. Salem Five Cent Savings Bankgreen2 sentences2007Grella, 42 F.3d at 28-29, 31 ; see also Baskett v. Pleasant, 1996 WL 135680 at *8 n. 8 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996, writ denied)(not designated for publication); Rios v. Town North National Bank, 1995 WL 375490 at *4 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied)(not designated for publication). 7 . 2007Grella , 42 F.3d at 28-29, 31 ; see also Baskett v. Pleasant , 1996 WL 135680 at *8 n.8 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1996, writ denied)(not designated for publication); Rios v. Town North National Bank , 1995 WL 375490 at *4 n.1 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, writ denied)(not designated for publication). 7. | 2 | 2 |
Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,661 D-1 Enterprises, Inc. v. Commercial State Bankgreen2 sentences2007D-1 Enterprises, 864 F.2d at 39 . 2007See D-1 Enterprises, 864 F.2d at 39 . | 2 | 2 |
Eslon Thermoplastics v. Dynamic Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2005See Eslon Thermoplastics , 49 S.W.3d at 902 . 2005See Eslon Thermoplastics , 49 S.W.3d at 902 . | 2 | 2 |
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Matagorda County Drainage District No. 3green2 sentences2010No. 3, 597 S.W.2d 910, 911-12 (Tex.1980) (approving a challenge to an annexation order because suit was filed against the Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control of the commissioners court”); Tar-rant County v. Denton County, 87 S.W.3d 1 2010No. 3 , 597 S.W.2d 910 , 911–12 (Tex. 1980) (approving a challenge to an annexation order because suit was filed against the Matagorda County Commissioners Court as a direct challenge to the commissioners court’s exceeding its authority); In re El Paso County Comm’rs Court , 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (stating that it has “long been the law in Texas that a direct equitable action must be filed in the district court in order to invoke that court’s jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control of the commissioners court”); Tarrant County v. Denton County , 87 S.W | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rossgreen1 sentence2025But because the State raised the illegal-sentence issue in its notice of appeal while the trial court had plenary power and because the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to opine on whether a direct challenge to an illegally harsh sentence could be barred by invited-error estoppel, see id. at 892 n.57, we will not dismiss based on invited error. 3 The State’s argument that the sentence is illegal because of the absence of a family-violence finding exceeds the limited scope of its permissible appeal because it challenges the finding of guilt, not the sentence. 2 Cf. State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 7 | 1 | 1 |
Peter C. Browning v. Jeff P. Prostokgreen1 sentence2025“Collateral attacks on final judgments are generally disallowed.” Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Torres v. State, No. 08-19-00209-CR, 2021 WL 3400598 , at *4 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 4, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[E]ven if the Order was not justified for any one of the reasons Torres now complains of, in any case, such error would have made the Order voidable—not void—and Torres’ -4- 04-25-00068-CR remedy was a direct challenge of the Order, in accordance with the appropriate procedures and deadlines at the time of the Order’s issuance.”); Nielsen v. State, No. 02-19-00157-CR, 2020 WL 1808574 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, pet. ref’d | 1 | 1 |
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. and Brien Garcia v. Nury Chapagreen1 sentence2024See Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 311 . | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. 2007); Johnson v. State, 271 S.W.3d 359, 362 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d). 18 to take every dollar I got and then leave the property[.]” In our opinion, that statement is much more ambiguous about whether Kirtley was making a direct claim about the money in the zip-up bag, or whether the statement was instead just a general observation about how he wouldn’t be left with much if he had to leave. | 1 | 1 |
Barron, Stark & Swift Consulting Engineers, LP and Barron-Bennett Architecture, LP v. First Baptist Church, Vidor, Texasgreen1 sentence2022See Barron, Stark & Swift Consulting Eng’rs, LP v. First Baptist Church, 551 S.W.3d 320, 322 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2018, no pet.); CBM Eng’rs, Inc. v. Tellepsen Builders, L.P., 403 S.W.3d 339, 342-43 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
CBM Engineers, Inc. v. Tellepsen Builders, L.P.green1 sentence2022See Barron, Stark & Swift Consulting Eng’rs, LP v. First Baptist Church, 551 S.W.3d 320, 322 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2018, no pet.); CBM Eng’rs, Inc. v. Tellepsen Builders, L.P., 403 S.W.3d 339, 342-43 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Collinsgreen1 sentence2021See In re Collins, 172 S.W.3d 287, 293 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, orig. proceeding) (noting that the suit on which the lis pendens is based must claim a direct interest in real property, not a collateral one). | 1 | 1 |
| Wagner v. D'LORMgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phillips v. Bramlettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pns Stores, Inc., D/B/A MacFrugal's Bargain Closeouts D/B/A MacFrugals, Inc. v. Anna E. Rivera as Next Friend for Rachel Riveragreen | 1 | 1 |
| EL PASO MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION CTR. v. Crissmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ernest Mungia v. via Metropolitan Transitgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Triax Oil and Gas, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Letourneau Lifelike Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Aviles v. Aguirregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wallace v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doyle v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Luquis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Loudin v. National Liability & Fire Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blake v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Madera Production Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Texas Southern University v. State Street Bank & Trust Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| City of Keller v. Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tiller v. McLuregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Corpus Christi v. Public Utility Commission of Texasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Meritor Automotive, Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2010Mid-Continent, 236 S.W.3d at 772 . 2010Mid-Continent, 236 S.W.3d at 772 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp.
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 1245 . 2007Id. at 1245 . *901 The Directors filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing Elloway could not bring a stockholder’s derivative suit because such suit belonged to the corporation and no longer existed. | 3 | 2003–2007 |
Nations v. State
green
2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 2002–2002 |
Saldivar v. State
green
2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 2002–2002 |
Christian v. Singletary
green
2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 2002–2002 |
Ullyses-Salazar v. United States
green
2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 2002–2002 |
Woodard v. Burt
green
2 sentences2002Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 (Tex.App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State , 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2002Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995); Saldivar v. State, 980 S.W.2d 475 , 502 7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Nations v. State, 894 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tex.App.--Austin 1995), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); but see Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 768-69 (Tex.App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (finding the error was not waived because it was a direct violation of article 38.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). | 3 | 2002–2002 |
Robert E. Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
First National Petroleum Corp. v. Lloyd
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Stacy L. Briggs
green
1 sentence2026Thus, “[a] police officer’s response to a direct inquiry by the defendant does not constitute ‘interrogation.’” United States v. Briggs, 273 F.3d 737, 740–41 (7th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases holding same). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rhodes v. State
green
1 sentence2025But because the State raised the illegal-sentence issue in its notice of appeal while the trial court had plenary power and because the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to opine on whether a direct challenge to an illegally harsh sentence could be barred by invited-error estoppel, see id. at 892 n.57, we will not dismiss based on invited error. 3 The State’s argument that the sentence is illegal because of the absence of a family-violence finding exceeds the limited scope of its permissible appeal because it challenges the finding of guilt, not the sentence. 2 Cf. State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 7 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Gonzalez v. Ramirez green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Arnold v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Ross v. Petro green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Kamel v. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Mizell v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Mayer v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Wingate v. Hajdik green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District of Chambers & Harris Counties v. Jarrar's Plumbing, Inc. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Johnson, Manley Dewayne green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Brown v. Todd green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Black v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Feldman v. Cutaia green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Lockett v. Ohio green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Traders & General Insurance v. Hicks Rubber Co. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Tyson green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Russo v. Abex Corp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Hartman v. Hartman green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Wright v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Phynes v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Olowosuko v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Rockhouse Mountain Property Owners Ass'n v. Town of Conway green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Phillips v. Youth Development Program, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.