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 2 courts 2006–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rabbani v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Rabbani 847 S.W.2d at 558 . 2006See Rabbani 847 S.W.2d at 558 . | 2 | 2 |
Dickey v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Dickey v. State, 22 S.W.3d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Todd v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Todd, 911 S.W.2d at 819 ; Borrego, 1997 WL 33804169 , at *1; accord Thompson, 2011 WL 2176507 , at *3-4; Halk, 1999 WL 504187 , at *5. | 1 | 1 |
Lydia Hernandez Bowen v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Bowen v. State, 187 S.W.3d 744, 746 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). 4 We ask whether the jury’s rejection of appellant’s self-defense theory provides us with an assurance that appellant suffered no harm. | 1 | 1 |
Tacon Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Grant Sheet Metal, Inc.green1 sentence2013See Tacon, 889 S.W.2d at 675 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilemongreen1 sentence2012See State v. Wilemon, 393 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex. 1965). | 1 | 1 |
Lane v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Tex. Penal Code §§ 7.01, 7.02. . 688 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 818 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 853 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Crim.App.l993)(op. on reh’g.). . (1) The court of appeals erred in holding that appellant was estopped from complaining that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for murder because he requested and was convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder; (2) Assuming arguendo that t 2006See Tex. Penal Code §§ 7.01, 7.02. . 688 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 818 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 853 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Crim.App.l993)(op. on reh’g.). . (1) The court of appeals erred in holding that appellant was estopped from complaining that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for murder because he requested and was convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder; (2) Assuming arguendo that t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leered1 sentence2006See Tex. Penal Code §§ 7.01, 7.02. . 688 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 818 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 853 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Crim.App.l993)(op. on reh’g.). . (1) The court of appeals erred in holding that appellant was estopped from complaining that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for murder because he requested and was convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder; (2) Assuming arguendo that t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yountgreen1 sentence2006See Tex. Penal Code §§ 7.01, 7.02. . 688 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 818 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 853 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Crim.App.l993)(op. on reh’g.). . (1) The court of appeals erred in holding that appellant was estopped from complaining that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for murder because he requested and was convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder; (2) Assuming arguendo that t | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Statered1 sentence2006See Tex. Penal Code §§ 7.01, 7.02. . 688 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 818 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), overruled on other grounds by Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). . 853 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Crim.App.l993)(op. on reh’g.). . (1) The court of appeals erred in holding that appellant was estopped from complaining that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for murder because he requested and was convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder; (2) Assuming arguendo that t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trevino v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 243 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.