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.
73 Texas opinions name it 5 courts 1895–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rawlings v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“Rather, it seeks a ruling from the court ordering the holding of a hearing outside the jury’s presence before any mention is made of the evidence.” Id. (citing Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482 , 484 n.1 (Tex. Crim. 2011App. 2003); Rawlings v. State , 874 S.W.2d 740, 743 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, no pet.) (reasoning that a motion in limine seeks a ruling from the court ordering the holding of a hearing outside the jury’s presence). | 2 | 3 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See id. 2014See id. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Akhtabgreen2 sentences1997See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-1265 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). [1] Art. 26.13(c) provides: In admonishing the defendant as herein provided, substantial compliance by the court is sufficient unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court. [2] The holding rule announced in Morales has been reaffirmed by this Court in Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1995), and Ex parte Akhtab, 901 S.W.2d 488, 489, n. 3 (Tex.Cr. 1997The holding rule announced in Morales has been reaffirmed by this Court in Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995), and Ex parte Akhtab, 901 S.W.2d 488, 489, n. 3 (Tex.Cr. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Tovargreen2 sentences1997See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-1265 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). [1] Art. 26.13(c) provides: In admonishing the defendant as herein provided, substantial compliance by the court is sufficient unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court. [2] The holding rule announced in Morales has been reaffirmed by this Court in Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1995), and Ex parte Akhtab, 901 S.W.2d 488, 489, n. 3 (Tex.Cr. 1997The holding rule announced in Morales has been reaffirmed by this Court in Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995), and Ex parte Akhtab, 901 S.W.2d 488, 489, n. 3 (Tex.Cr. | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Instead, I would hold that (1) the trial testimony about Diles’s full-nelson hold of appellant did create an ambiguity on whether Diles was the first aggressor; therefore, Diles’s specific violent acts were admissible to prove Diles was the first aggressor, and the trial court erred in excluding appellant’s testimony about such acts;2 (2) the State opened the door to cross examination about Diles’s physical abuse of Castillo when it injected the nature of the Castillo/Diles relationship into evidence by asking Castillo on initial direct examination what her relationship with Diles was like; an 2015Instead, I would hold that (1) the trial testimony about Diles’s full-nelson hold of appellant did create an ambiguity on whether Diles was the first aggressor; therefore, Diles’s specific violent acts were admissible to prove Diles was the first aggressor, and the trial court erred in excluding appel lant’s testimony about such acts; 2 (2) the State opened the door to cross examination about ■ Diles’s physical abuse' of Castillo when it injected the nature of the Castillo/Diles relationship into evidence by asking Castillo on initial direct examination what her relationship with Diles was lik | 1 | 2 |
Chavarria v. Stategreen2 sentences1981A corollary to this holding was the rule, announced in Chavarria v. State, 425 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), that it was error to accept a “conditional plea”; that is, a plea of nolo contendere or guilty entered with the understanding that the defendant could appeal the pre-trial rulings. 1981See Chavarria v. State, 425 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). | 1 | 2 |
Ex Parte Torresgreen1 sentence2017See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Womble v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Womble v. State, 618 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). 1 I join the Majority’s disposition of the alleged evidentiary error in excluding Diles’s physical abuse of Castillo but do not join the holding or analysis. | 1 | 1 |
in Re Steven and Shyla Lipsky and Alisa Richgreen1 sentence2015See In re Lipsky, 411 S.W.3d 530, 540-41 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, orig. proc.) (interpreting previous version of statute with same language but different deadlines). 4 permission from the court. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See State v. Wei, 447 S.W.3d 549, 554 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (citing Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949, 956 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brian Weigreen1 sentence2015See State v. Wei, 447 S.W.3d 549, 554 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (citing Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949, 956 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Westgate, Ltd. v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Following a holding that there is error in the trial court’s judgment, remand to the trial court in the interest of justice is appropriate in several situations, including when (1) “we overrule existing precedents on which the losing party relied at trial,” (2) “it appears from the record that the losing party might be able to recover under some other established legal theory that was not developed at the first trial,” and (3) on appeal, “we announce a new standard of recovery in the case under consideration.” Westgate, Ltd. v. State, 843 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Tex. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Scott Bader, Inc. v. Sandstone Products, Inc.green1 sentence2014“As long as there is a probability that a case has, for any reason, not been fully developed, an appellate court has discretion to remand for a new trial. . . .” Ahmed v. Ahmed, 261 S.W.3d 190, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Scott Bader, Inc. v. Sandstone Prods., Inc., 248 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Ahmed v. Ahmedgreen1 sentence2014“As long as there is a probability that a case has, for any reason, not been fully developed, an appellate court has discretion to remand for a new trial. . . .” Ahmed v. Ahmed, 261 S.W.3d 190, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Scott Bader, Inc. v. Sandstone Prods., Inc., 248 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Bestegreen1 sentence2009Id at 41-42; see Collins v. Beste, 840 S.W.2d 788, 792 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Barker v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See id. 2001See id. | 1 | 1 |
Milkiewicz v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.green1 sentence1998Some of these precepts have the stature of the Court’s holding under the rule that “[w]hen the Supreme Court issues a plurality decision, and ‘no rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, “the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds Milkiewicz v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 963 F.Supp. 1150, 1155 (M.D.Fla.1996) (quoting Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990, 993-94 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2923 n | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arizona v. Fulminantegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bodnow Corp. v. City of Hondogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rosenkrans v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Garcia-Garciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Esparza v. Esparzagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Todd v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sweeney v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lewis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bray v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| First Nat. Bank in Bartlesville v. Bellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kilpper v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Utsman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cascio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grady v. Corbin
red
2 sentences1992Therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars this successive prosecutionf.]" 495 U.S. at 523 , 110 S.Ct. at 2094, 109 L.Ed.2d at 565 . [6] The Court added however: *861 "This holding would not bar a subsequent prosecution on the homicide and assault charges if the bill of particulars revealed that the State would not rely on proving the conduct for which Corbin had already been convicted (i.e., if the State relied solely on Corbin's driving too fast in heavy rain to establish recklessness or negligence." Ibid. 1992Therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars this successive prosecutionf.]" 495 U.S. at 523 , 110 S.Ct. at 2094, 109 L.Ed.2d at 565 . [6] The Court added however: *861 "This holding would not bar a subsequent prosecution on the homicide and assault charges if the bill of particulars revealed that the State would not rely on proving the conduct for which Corbin had already been convicted (i.e., if the State relied solely on Corbin's driving too fast in heavy rain to establish recklessness or negligence." Ibid. | 3 | 1992–1992 |
Nunfio v. State
green
2 sentences2021“Rather, it seeks a ruling from the court ordering the holding of a hearing outside the jury’s presence before any mention is made of the evidence.” Id. (citing Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482 , 484 n.1 (Tex. Crim. 1994Nunfio, 808 S.W.2d at 484 n. 1. | 2 | 1994–2021 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2017I sary to preserve the due process protection recognized in shall next show that it is not logically compelled by ei- Winship, [HN13] a federal habeas corpus court faced ther the holding or the analysis in In re Winship, supra. with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting Finally, I shall try to demonstrate why the Court's new inferences must presume -- even if it does not affirma- rule -- if it is not just a meaningless shibboleth -- threat- tively appear in the record -- that the trier of fact resolved ens serious harm to the quality of our judicial system. any such conflicts 2015I shall next show that it is not logically compelled by either the holding or the analysis in In re Winship, supra. Finally, I shall try to demonstrate why the Court's new rule -- if it is not just a meaningless shibboleth -- threatens serious harm to the quality of our judicial system. | 2 | 2015–2017 |
Turner v. State
green
2 sentences2011Turner, 897 S.W.2d at 787-88 . 2011Turner , 897 S.W.2d at 787-88 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Allen v. Pacheco
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 379-80 & 380 n.4. 2005Id. at 379-80 & 380 n. 4. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Almanza v. State
green
2 sentences1986Moreover, this Court's decision in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) would require that we review the record to determine whether the trial court's refusal to grant the requested charge was "calculated to injure the rights of the defendant." Id. at 171 . 1986Furthermore, since this Court’s decision of Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), and its progeny, a jury charge “just ain’t what it used to be.” Believing that the New Penal Code destroyed the right to have the jury specially instructed on the relative size and strength of the assailant, I concur in the holding that no error occurred when the trial judge did not give the appellant’s requested charge on this point. | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1983Likewise, the deletion of the reference to incarceration "in such institution" from the third sentence removes any impediment to the paroled prisoner's remaining at the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest for the local hearing which is to be held prior to his being returned "to the institution from which he was released." Morrissey, supra. Hence, the requirement of 37 Texas Administrative Code, section 45.45(g), that "the administrative release revocation hearing shall be held at or near the location of the alleged violations or arrest . . ." not only complies with the Morrissey ma 1983Likewise, the deletion of the reference to incarceration "in such institution" from the third sentence removes any impediment to the paroled prisoner's remaining at the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest for the local hearing which is to be held prior to his being returned "to the institution from which he was released." Morrissey, supra. Hence, the requirement of 37 Texas Administrative Code, section 45.45(g), that "the administrative release revocation hearing shall be held at or near the location of the alleged violations or arrest . . ." not only complies with the Morrissey ma | 2 | 1983–1983 |
El Paso Electric Ry. Co. v. Lee
green
2 sentences1913The action of the Supreme Court in granting a writ of error in El Paso Electric Railway Company v. Lee, 157 S. W. 748 , indicates its disapproval of this court’s holding that rule 25 ( 142 S. W. xii ) requires that assignments of error shall refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of. 1913The action of the Supreme court in granting a writ of error in El Paso Electric Railway Co. v. Lee, 157 S.W. 748 , indicates its disapproval of this court's holding that rule 25 ( 142 S.W. xii ) requires that assignments of error shall refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of. | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Goldman v. Alkek
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 572 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon Ex Rel. Shultz
green
1 sentence2015Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d at 101 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Georgia v. Randolph
green
2 sentences2013Second, the Randolph Court seemed to have structured the holding as an exception to the general rule of Rodriguez and Matlock that a cotenant may consent to the search of a residence, id. at 106 , 126 S. Ct. 1515 , and that this exception was narrowly drawn along a “fine line.” Id. at 121–22, 126 S. Ct. 1515 . 2013Second, the Randolph Court seemed to have structured the holding as an exception to the general rule of Rodriguez and Matlock that a cotenant may consent to the search of a residence, id. at 106 , 126 S. Ct. 1515 , and that this exception was narrowly drawn along a “fine line.” Id. at 121–22, 126 S. Ct. 1515 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2001The Majority's Holding The standard by which we review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2062-2063 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2001The Majority's Holding The standard by which we review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2062-2063 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Marks v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Some of these precepts have the stature of the Court’s holding under the rule that “[w]hen the Supreme Court issues a plurality decision, and ‘no rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, “the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds Milkiewicz v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 963 F.Supp. 1150, 1155 (M.D.Fla.1996) (quoting Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990, 993-94 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2923 n 1998Some of these precepts have the stature of the Court’s holding under the rule that “[w]hen the Supreme Court issues a plurality decision, and ‘no rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, “the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds Milkiewicz v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 963 F.Supp. 1150, 1155 (M.D.Fla.1996) (quoting Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 , 97 S.Ct. 990, 993-94 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2923 n | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Gregg v. Georgia green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Briddle v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Smith v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Bolton v. Alvarado neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Fortenberry v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Eddins-Walcher Butane Company v. Calvert green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Mayfield v. State green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Grijalva v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Killebrew v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Allen v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Ex Parte Peterson green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| McClelland v. United Services Automobile Ass'n green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Love v. State Bank & Trust Co. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Haynes neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| First National Bank v. Peterson green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Russell v. Dobbs green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Dobbs v. Russell green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| A Book Named \John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure\" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts" green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Vasquez v. Meaders green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Gillette Motor Transport Co. v. Whitfield green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Buckner v. Eubank green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Turner neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Hunter v. State green | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Ennis Mercantile Co. v. Wathen green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Walker v. Taylor green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.