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 1 courts 1997–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Olivo v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (recognizing that an appellate court “has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction”). 7 The court noted, however, that a verdict of acquittal is not reviewable on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohngreen1 sentence2018See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 , 184–85 (Tex. 1978). 4 Within the same issues, Walker additionally asserts that the trial court violated various judicial canons in its conduct of the hearing on Gutierrez’s motion, such as “failing to maintain professional competence in the law” and “failing to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” See Texas Code of Jud. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2018Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen1 sentence2014On appeal, Gutierrez generally argues that we are not required to “parse” the individual conduct elements for the culpable mental state “because the act of aggravated robbery is criminalized because of [its] very nature.” Appellant’s brief, pg. 21 (citing Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (en banc)). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Martinez, 348 S.W.3d at 922 . | 1 | 1 |
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Top of the Strip, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Top of the Strip, 993 S.W.2d at 245 ; Morgan, 872 S.W.2d at 822 . 2012See Top of the Strip, Inc., 993 S.W.2d at 245-46 . | 1 | 1 |
Flannery v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Flannery v. State, 676 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Faulder v. State, 745 S.W.2d 327, 338 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (reaffirming holding in Revia that because change of venue is of constitutional dimension, time requirements applicable to other pretrial motions do not apply to motion for change of venue); Powell v. State, 777 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1989, pet. ref'd) (following Revia and holding that trial court erred when it denied motion for change of venue not on contents, but because motion was untimely filed after pretrial hearing); Biegajski v. State, 653 S.W.2d 624, 627 (Tex.App.— San Antonio 1983, pet. refd) (relying on Re-via t | 1 | 1 |
Penry v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Under these circumstances, I would hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gutierrez’s motion to change venue, e.g., Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995), because a “reasonable view of the record” supports the conclusion the trial court held his ruling on Gutierrez’s motion in abeyance at the January 24, 1995 pretrial hearing and, thereafter, Gutierrez effectively withdrew and thus waived his motion. | 1 | 1 |
Biegajski v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Faulder v. State, 745 S.W.2d 327, 338 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (reaffirming holding in Revia that because change of venue is of constitutional dimension, time requirements applicable to other pretrial motions do not apply to motion for change of venue); Powell v. State, 777 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1989, pet. ref'd) (following Revia and holding that trial court erred when it denied motion for change of venue not on contents, but because motion was untimely filed after pretrial hearing); Biegajski v. State, 653 S.W.2d 624, 627 (Tex.App.— San Antonio 1983, pet. refd) (relying on Re-via t | 1 | 1 |
Faulder v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Faulder v. State, 745 S.W.2d 327, 338 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (reaffirming holding in Revia that because change of venue is of constitutional dimension, time requirements applicable to other pretrial motions do not apply to motion for change of venue); Powell v. State, 777 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1989, pet. ref'd) (following Revia and holding that trial court erred when it denied motion for change of venue not on contents, but because motion was untimely filed after pretrial hearing); Biegajski v. State, 653 S.W.2d 624, 627 (Tex.App.— San Antonio 1983, pet. refd) (relying on Re-via t | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Jenkins v. State, 912 S.W.2d 793, 811 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (citing Tex.R.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gutierrez v. Flores
green
2 sentences2011In contrast, Gutierrez's claim did "not involve the employment relationship or any adverse employment action." Id. at 254 . 2011In contrast, Gutierrez’s claim did “not involve the employment relationship or any adverse employment action.” Id. at 254 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gutierrez
green
1 sentence2019The court of criminal appeals reversed and reinstated the judgment. 541 S.W.3d at 104 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Morgan v. Employees' Retirement System
green
1 sentence2012See Top of the Strip, 993 S.W.2d at 245 ; Morgan, 872 S.W.2d at 822 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Foster v. State
green
1 sentence1997Foster, 779 S.W.2d at 854-55 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Penry v. Texas
green
1 sentence1997Under these circumstances, I would hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gutierrez’s motion to change venue, e.g., Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995), because a “reasonable view of the record” supports the conclusion the trial court held his ruling on Gutierrez’s motion in abeyance at the January 24, 1995 pretrial hearing and, thereafter, Gutierrez effectively withdrew and thus waived his motion. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tucker v. New Jersey State Prison
green
1 sentence1997Under these circumstances, I would hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gutierrez’s motion to change venue, e.g., Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995), because a “reasonable view of the record” supports the conclusion the trial court held his ruling on Gutierrez’s motion in abeyance at the January 24, 1995 pretrial hearing and, thereafter, Gutierrez effectively withdrew and thus waived his motion. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.