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.
10 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Rudolph Acostagreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Dodson v. State, No. 2-08-286-CR, 2010 WL 2889693 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 22, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding evidence of defendant’s previous convenience-store robbery admitted in subsequent robbery prosecution more probative than prejudicial because prior robbery “assisted the jury in understanding Dodson’s identity as one of the robbers in the D & S Food Mart robbery”); Rogers v. State, 183 S.W.3d 853 , 864–65 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, no pet.) (concluding murder victim’s phone message left for her boss the day before her death n 2015See, e.g., Dodson v. State, No. 2-08-286-CR, 2010 WL 2889693 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 22, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding evidence of defendant’s previous convenience-store robbery admitted in subsequent robbery prosecution more probative than prejudicial because prior robbery “assisted the jury in understanding Dodson’s identity as one of the robbers in the D & S Food Mart robbery”); Rogers v. State, 183 S.W.3d 853 , 864–65 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, no pet.) (concluding murder victim’s phone message left for her boss the day before her death n | 3 | 3 |
Vasquez v. Stategreen1 sentence2014“Under article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, ‘[i]n all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an accused, the [trial] court ... must enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made, along with the specific finding of fact upon which the conclusion was based, which order shall be filed among the papers of this cause.’’’ Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Equinox Enterprises, Inc. v. Associated Media Inc.green1 sentence2013ExxonMobil argues Equinox Enterprises, Inc. v. Associated Media Inc., supports the proposition that a defendant must set up a meritorious defense regarding each of the plaintiff’s causes of action to satisfy the second Craddock prong. 730 S.W.2d 872, 876 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Methodist Charlton Medical Center v. Steelegreen2 sentences2011The supreme court in Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671-72 , stated that “[w]hen a party’s alleged health care liability is purely vicarious, a report that adequately implicates the actions of that party’s agents or employees is sufficient.” Emphasizing that the allegations of vicarious liability in Gardner were based on respondeat superior, the Hospital Defendants argue that the supreme court “has not elaborated on what other theories of vicarious liability it might consider ‘purely vicarious’ beyond respondeat superior liability.” Thus, the Hospital Defendants argue that under Gardner, “purely vicar 2011The supreme court in Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671-72 , stated that “[w]hen a party’s alleged health care liability is purely vicarious, a report that adequately implicates the actions of that party’s agents or employees is sufficient.” Emphasizing that the allegations of vicarious liability in Gardner were based on respondeat superior, the Hospital Defendants argue that the supreme court “has not elaborated on what other theories of vicarious liability it might consider ‘purely vicarious’ beyond respondeat superior liability.” Thus, the Hospital Defendants argue that under Gardner, “purely vicar | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Lesesnegreen1 sentence1978Holland v. Lesesne, 350 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1961, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. State
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Dodson v. State, No. 2-08-286-CR, 2010 WL 2889693 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 22, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding evidence of defendant’s previous convenience-store robbery admitted in subsequent robbery prosecution more probative than prejudicial because prior robbery “assisted the jury in understanding Dodson’s identity as one of the robbers in the D & S Food Mart robbery”); Rogers v. State, 183 S.W.3d 853 , 864–65 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, no pet.) (concluding murder victim’s phone message left for her boss the day before her death n 2015See, e.g., Dodson v. State, No. 2-08-286-CR, 2010 WL 2889693 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 22, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding evidence of defendant’s previous convenience-store robbery admitted in subsequent robbery prosecution more probative than prejudicial because prior robbery “assisted the jury in understanding Dodson’s identity as one of the robbers in the D & S Food Mart robbery”); Rogers v. State, 183 S.W.3d 853 , 864–65 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, no pet.) (concluding murder victim’s phone message left for her boss the day before her death n | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011The supreme court in Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671-72 , stated that “[w]hen a party’s alleged health care liability is purely vicarious, a report that adequately implicates the actions of that party’s agents or employees is sufficient.” Emphasizing that the allegations of vicarious liability in Gardner were based on respondeat superi- or, the Hospital Defendants argue that the supreme court “has not elaborated on what other theories of vicarious liability it might consider ‘purely vicarious’ beyond respon-deat superior liability.” Thus, the Hospital Defendants argue that under Gardner , “purely v 2011The supreme court in Gardner, 274 S.W.3d at 671-72 , stated that “[w]hen a party’s alleged health care liability is purely vicarious, a report that adequately implicates the actions of that party’s agents or employees is sufficient.” Emphasizing that the allegations of vicarious liability in Gardner were based on respondeat superi- or, the Hospital Defendants argue that the supreme court “has not elaborated on what other theories of vicarious liability it might consider ‘purely vicarious’ beyond respon-deat superior liability.” Thus, the Hospital Defendants argue that under Gardner , “purely v | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Gardner v. State
green
1 sentence2015This Court held the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in denying Gardner’s challenge for cause because the existence of “some unknown, hypothetical situation in which man’s law was in conflict with [the juror’s] understanding of Scripture does not mean that he was unable or unwilling to follow the law in a death-penalty case.” Id. at 299 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gardner v. Florida
green
2 sentences1995Gardner was denied due process because the trial court relied upon relevant evidence which Gardner had no opportunity to deny or explain. 430 U.S. at 362 , 97 S.Ct. at 1206-07 . 1995Gardner was denied due process because the trial court relied upon relevant evidence which Gardner had no opportunity to deny or explain. 430 U.S. at 362 , 97 S.Ct. at 1206-07 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.