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 1986–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gibbs v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Gibbs v. State, 819 S.W.2d 821, 830 (Tex. Crim. 2001Gibbs v. State , 819 S.W.2d 821, 830 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Espalin v. Children's Medical Center of Dallasgreen1 sentence2020See id. (citing Baptist Mem’l Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Benefit Planners, L.L.P. v. RenCare, Ltd.green1 sentence2019The end effect of our application of the strict compliance standard is an increased opportunity for trial on the merits. [T]his policy justifies what may at first blush seem a hyper- technical rule.” Benefit Planners, L.L.P. v. RenCare, Ltd., 81 S.W.3d 855, 859 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Golliday v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Golliday v. State, 560 S.W.3d 664, 670 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biggargreen1 sentence1994Tex.Const. art. 1, § 17; State v. Biggar, 873 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Tex.1994) (citing Gainesville, H. & W.R. | 1 | 1 |
Holcomb v. Stategreen2 sentences1986We note that four of the cases upon which appellant relies 2 are discussed by the Court as examples of what it characterizes as “a hyper-technical rule such as might be found in a 19th Century pleading book.” Accord Holcomb v. State, 597 S.W.2d 373, 374-75 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). 1986We note that four of the cases upon which *326 appellant relies [2] are discussed by the Court as examples of what it characterizes as "a hyper-technical rule such as might be found in a 19th Century pleading book." Accord Holcomb v. State, 597 S.W.2d 373, 374-75 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Verlander Enterprises, Inc. v. Graham
green
2 sentences2019Graham, 932 S.W.2d at 261-62 . 2002The end effect of our application of the strict compliance standard is an increased opportunity for trial on the merits. [T]his policy justifies what may at first blush seem a hyper-technical rule.” Verlander Enterprises, Inc. v. Graham, 932 S.W.2d at 262 . | 2 | 2002–2019 |
Whiskeman v. Lama
green
1 sentence1996Whiskeman, 847 S.W.2d at 329 n. 1. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.