78 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rousseau v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Campbell, 149 S.W.3d at 152 (stating first prong of Rousseau/Royster test is satisfied if lesser-ihcluded offense is within the proof *475 necessary to establish the charged offense) (citing Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672-73); see also Bell, 693 S.W.2d at 438-39 (holding deadly conduct was a lesser-ineluded offense of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon as charged). 2005See Campbell , 149 S.W.3d at 152 (stating first prong of Rousseau/Royster test is satisfied if lesser-included offense is within the proof necessary to establish the charged offense) (citing Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672–73); see also Bell , 693 S.W.2d at 438–39 (holding deadly conduct was a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon as charged). | 23 | 32 |
Royster v. Stategreen2 sentences1997NOTES [1] See Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993); Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985); Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (plurality op. on reh'g). [2] The Doss court stated in dicta that the Royster requirement did not apply to the State because of the State's "heavier burden of proof ... and ... obligation to seek a conviction if the evidence so warrants." Doss v. State, 636 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.Waco 1982 pet. ref'd) (emphasis added). 1994Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 673 (Tex.Crim.App.) (quoting Royster, 622 S.W.2d at 446 ) (emphasis in Rousseau on portion added to Royster test), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993). | 8 | 20 |
George Cordova v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1993Appellant also calls into question the continued vitality of the “Royster test” in light of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764, 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988). 1993Appellant also calls into question the continued vitality of the " Royster test" in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764, 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988). | 5 | 5 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2006App. 2001). 47: Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 741 ; Lofton, 45 S.W.3d at 652 . 48: Anderson v. State, 125 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.); see also Hall v. State, 682 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1984, no pet.) (stating that “mere speculation, conjecture or surmise” does not meet the second prong of the Royster test). 2006App. 2001). 47: Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 741 ; Lofton, 45 S.W.3d at 652 . 48: Anderson v. State, 125 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.); see also Hall v. State, 682 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1984, no pet.) (stating that “mere speculation, conjecture or surmise” does not meet the second prong of the Royster test). | 4 | 4 |
Aguilar v. Stategreen2 sentences1998The majority opinion asserted, “We have never stated a rationale for the second prong of the Rousseau [v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)]-Aguilar [v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)]-Royster test, perhaps because we thought the rationale was obvious.” Arevalo v. State, 948 S.W.2d 887 , 889 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). 1997First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. [4] Secondly, there must be some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser offense. [5] In Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), a majority of this Court adopted the two-prong Royster test. | 3 | 7 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Id. at 852. 1996Id. at 852. | 3 | 5 |
Doss v. Stategreen2 sentences1997NOTES [1] See Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993); Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985); Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (plurality op. on reh'g). [2] The Doss court stated in dicta that the Royster requirement did not apply to the State because of the State's "heavier burden of proof ... and ... obligation to seek a conviction if the evidence so warrants." Doss v. State, 636 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.Waco 1982 pet. ref'd) (emphasis added). 1997The Doss court stated in dicta that the Royster requirement did not apply to the State because of the State’s "heavier burden of proof ... and ... obligation to seek a conviction if the evidence so -warrants." Doss v. State, 636 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.—Waco 1982 pet. ref'd) (emphasis added). | 3 | 4 |
Rushing v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Rushing v. State , 50 S.W.3d 715, 732 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), aff'd , 85 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. 2006See Rushing v. State , 50 S.W.3d 715, 732 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), aff'd , 85 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Rushing v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Rushing v. State , 50 S.W.3d 715, 732 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), aff'd , 85 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. 2006See Rushing v. State , 50 S.W.3d 715, 732 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), aff'd , 85 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Arevalo v. Stategreen2 sentences2004This second part of the Royster test “preserves the integrity of the jury as the fact-finder by ensuring that the jury is instructed as to the lesser offense only when that offense constitutes a valid, rational alternative to the charged offense.” Arevalo v. State, 943 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex. Crim. 2004This second part of the Royster test “preserves the integrity of the jury as the fact-finder by ensuring that the jury is instructed as to the lesser offense only when that offense constitutes a valid, rational alternative to the charged offense.” Arevalo v. State, 943 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Havard v. Stategreen2 sentences2003“In determining whether the trial court erred in failing to give a charge on a lesser included offense, all of the evidence must be considered.” Id.; (referencing Havard v. State, 800 S.W.2d 195, 216 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (op. on reh’g)). 2003“In determining whether the trial court erred in failing to give a charge on a lesser included offense, all of the evidence must be considered.” Id.; (referencing Havard v. State, 800 S.W.2d 195, 216 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (op. on reh’g)). | 3 | 3 |
Angel v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Gottlich v. State, 822 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd); Angel v. State, 694 S.W.2d 164, 169 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (dicta), aff'd, 740 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Doss v. State, 636 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.Waco 1982, pet. ref'd) (dicta). [2] The court of appeals also noted, however, that the Tenth Court of Appeals, in Richardson v. State, 832 S.W.2d 168, 171 (Tex.App.Waco 1992, pet. ref'd), had repudiated the position it had taken earlier in Doss . 1997See Gottlich v. State, 822 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd); Angel v. State, 694 S.W.2d 164, 169 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (dicta), aff'd, 740 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Doss v. State, 636 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.—Waco 1982, pet. ref'd) (dicta). 2 The court of appeals also noted, however, that the Tenth Court of Appeals, in Richardson v. State, 832 S.W.2d 168, 171 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, pet. ref'd), had repudiated the position it had taken earlier in Doss . | 2 | 3 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006App. 2001). 47: Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 741 ; Lofton, 45 S.W.3d at 652 . 48: Anderson v. State, 125 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.); see also Hall v. State, 682 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1984, no pet.) (stating that “mere speculation, conjecture or surmise” does not meet the second prong of the Royster test). 2006App. 2001). 47: Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 741 ; Lofton, 45 S.W.3d at 652 . 48: Anderson v. State, 125 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.); see also Hall v. State, 682 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1984, no pet.) (stating that “mere speculation, conjecture or surmise” does not meet the second prong of the Royster test). | 2 | 2 |
Bell v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Campbell, 149 S.W.3d at 152 (stating first prong of Rousseau/Royster test is satisfied if lesser-ihcluded offense is within the proof *475 necessary to establish the charged offense) (citing Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672-73); see also Bell, 693 S.W.2d at 438-39 (holding deadly conduct was a lesser-ineluded offense of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon as charged). 2005See Campbell , 149 S.W.3d at 152 (stating first prong of Rousseau/Royster test is satisfied if lesser-included offense is within the proof necessary to establish the charged offense) (citing Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672–73); see also Bell , 693 S.W.2d at 438–39 (holding deadly conduct was a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon as charged). | 2 | 2 |
Campbell v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Campbell, 149 S.W.3d at 152 (stating first prong of Rousseau/Royster test is satisfied if lesser-ihcluded offense is within the proof *475 necessary to establish the charged offense) (citing Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672-73); see also Bell, 693 S.W.2d at 438-39 (holding deadly conduct was a lesser-ineluded offense of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon as charged). 2005See Campbell , 149 S.W.3d at 152 (stating first prong of Rousseau/Royster test is satisfied if lesser-included offense is within the proof necessary to establish the charged offense) (citing Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672–73); see also Bell , 693 S.W.2d at 438–39 (holding deadly conduct was a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon as charged). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Bignall, 887 S.W.2d at 23 ; Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex. Crim. 2004Bignall, 887 S.W.2d at 23 ; Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Lugo v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Although we have long-recognized the importance of distinguishing between the roles of court and jury in the context of lesser included offenses, Lugo, 667 S.W.2d at 146 (quoting Liskosski v. State, 23 Tex.App. 165 , 3 S.W. 696, 698 (Tex.Ct.App.1887)), we have never explained the relationship between those roles and the application of the Royster test. 1997Although we have long-recognized the importance of distinguishing between the roles of court and jury in the context of lesser included offenses, Lugo, 667 S.W.2d at 146 (quoting Liskosski v. State, 23 Tex.App. 165 , 3 S.W. 696, 698 (Tex.Ct.App.1887)), we have never explained the relationship between those roles and the application of the Royster test. | 2 | 2 |
Liskosski v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Although we have long-recognized the importance of distinguishing between the roles of court and jury in the context of lesser included offenses, Lugo, 667 S.W.2d at 146 (quoting Liskosski v. State, 23 Tex.App. 165 , 3 S.W. 696, 698 (Tex.Ct.App.1887)), we have never explained the relationship between those roles and the application of the Royster test. 1997Although we have long-recognized the importance of distinguishing between the roles of court and jury in the context of lesser included offenses, Lugo, 667 S.W.2d at 146 (quoting Liskosski v. State, 23 Tex.App. 165 , 3 S.W. 696, 698 (Tex.Ct.App.1887)), we have never explained the relationship between those roles and the application of the Royster test. | 2 | 2 |
| Saunders v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Angel v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Gottlich v. State, 822 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd); Angel v. State, 694 S.W.2d 164, 169 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (dicta), aff'd, 740 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Doss v. State, 636 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.Waco 1982, pet. ref'd) (dicta). [2] The court of appeals also noted, however, that the Tenth Court of Appeals, in Richardson v. State, 832 S.W.2d 168, 171 (Tex.App.Waco 1992, pet. ref'd), had repudiated the position it had taken earlier in Doss . 1997See Gottlich v. State, 822 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd); Angel v. State, 694 S.W.2d 164, 169 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (dicta), aff'd, 740 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Doss v. State, 636 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.—Waco 1982, pet. ref'd) (dicta). 2 The court of appeals also noted, however, that the Tenth Court of Appeals, in Richardson v. State, 832 S.W.2d 168, 171 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, pet. ref'd), had repudiated the position it had taken earlier in Doss . | 1 | 3 |
Bohnet v. Stategreen2 sentences2001The Royster test requires first that 938 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App.— proof of the lesser offense be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. 2001The Royster test requires first that 938 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Tex. App.— proof of the lesser offense be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. | 1 | 2 |
Daywood v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Schweinle v. State, 915 S.W.2d at 18 ; Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d at 558 ; Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d at 444 ; McBrayer v. State, 504 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Daywood v. State, 157 Tex.Cr. 266, 267-69 , 248 S.W.2d 479, 481 (1952). 1998Schweinle v. State, 915 S.W.2d at 18 ; Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d at 558 ; Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d at 444 ; McBrayer v. State, 504 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Daywood v. State, 157 Tex.Cr. 266, 267-69 , 248 S.W.2d 479, 481 (1952). | 1 | 2 |
| Moore v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wisdom's Adm'r v. Sims, Co. Supt. of Schoolsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ortiz v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Feldman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dowden v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McBrayer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Richardson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arevalo v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gottlich v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Zimmerman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Navarro v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. Texasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Port Ship Service, Inc. v. Norton Lilly & Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Almanza v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lewis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marras v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Horton
green
2 sentences1997Finally, in Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), we modified the language, but not the meaning, of the two-prong Royster test so that “the roles of the court and jury [would] be better understood”: [F]irst, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and, second, some evidence must exist in the record that would 'permit a jury rationally to find that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense. 1997Finally, in Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), we modified the language, but not the meaning, of the two-prong Royster test so that “the roles of the court and jury [would] be better understood”: [F]irst, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and, second, some evidence must exist in the record that would 'permit a jury rationally to find that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense. | 9 | 1993–1997 |
Charlton v. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
green
2 sentences1997Finally, in Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), we modified the language, but not the meaning, of the two-prong Royster test so that “the roles of the court and jury [would] be better understood”: [F]irst, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and, second, some evidence must exist in the record that would 'permit a jury rationally to find that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense. 1997Finally, in Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), we modified the language, but not the meaning, of the two-prong Royster test so that “the roles of the court and jury [would] be better understood”: [F]irst, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and, second, some evidence must exist in the record that would 'permit a jury rationally to find that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense. | 7 | 1993–1997 |
Lynaugh v. Cordova
green
2 sentences1993Appellant also calls into question the continued vitality of the “Royster test” in light of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764, 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988). 1993Appellant also calls into question the continued vitality of the " Royster test" in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764, 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988). | 5 | 1993–1997 |
Dugger v. Miller
green
2 sentences1993Appellant also calls into question the continued vitality of the “Royster test” in light of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764, 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988). 1993Appellant also calls into question the continued vitality of the " Royster test" in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764, 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988). | 4 | 1993–1997 |
Bignall v. State
green
2 sentences2004Bignall, 887 S.W.2d at 23 ; Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex. Crim. 2004Bignall, 887 S.W.2d at 23 ; Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Schweinle v. State
green
2 sentences2004Schweinle , 915 S.W.2d at 18 , Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Aguilar , 682 S.W.2d at 558 ; Royster , 622 S.W.2d at 444 . 1998Schweinle v. State, 915 S.W.2d at 18 ; Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d at 558 ; Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d at 444 ; McBrayer v. State, 504 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Daywood v. State, 157 Tex.Cr. 266, 267-69 , 248 S.W.2d 479, 481 (1952). | 2 | 1998–2004 |
Harner v. State
green
2 sentences2003The question remaining is whether a reasonable jury, looking at all the evidence, could have found the evidence established Anderson’s guilt of only unlawful restraint, to the exclusion of the aggravated kidnapping charge, as required under the second prong of the Royster test. 3 In applying Royster’s second prong, “the trial court should make a determination as to whether the evidence of the lesser offense would be sufficient for a jury rationally to find that the defendant is guilty only of that offense and not the greater offense.” Hamer, 997 S.W.2d at 702 (citing Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W 2003The question remaining is whether a reasonable jury, looking at all the evidence, could have found the evidence established Anderson’s guilt of only unlawful restraint, to the exclusion of the aggravated kidnapping charge, as required under the second prong of the Royster test. 3 In applying Royster’s second prong, “the trial court should make a determination as to whether the evidence of the lesser offense would be sufficient for a jury rationally to find that the defendant is guilty only of that offense and not the greater offense.” Hamer, 997 S.W.2d at 702 (citing Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Hardy v. United States
green
2 sentences1997Finally, in Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), we modified the language, but not the meaning, of the two-prong Royster test so that “the roles of the court and jury [would] be better understood”: [F]irst, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and, second, some evidence must exist in the record that would 'permit a jury rationally to find that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense. 1997Finally, in Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-673 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), we modified the language, but not the meaning, of the two-prong Royster test so that “the roles of the court and jury [would] be better understood”: [F]irst, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and, second, some evidence must exist in the record that would 'permit a jury rationally to find that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Hopper v. Evans
green
2 sentences1997Although the Fifth Circuit has noted that the Royster test “seems very similar” to the federal standard, id. at 767 n. 3, one prominent difference between the two is the reference in the federal standard to the rational findings of a jury. 1997Although the Fifth Circuit has noted that the Royster test “seems very similar” to the federal standard, id. at 767 n. 3, one prominent difference between the two is the reference in the federal standard to the rational findings of a jury. | 2 | 1993–1997 |
| Gonzales v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lofton v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Salinas v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Rycade Oil Corporation v. Lasater green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Campbell v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Robertson v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Blalock v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Brooks v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Sattiewhite v. State green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Keeton v. State green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Hardin v. McMaster green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Standley v. United States Tax Court green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Marquez v. Texas green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Moore v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.