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 1971–1991 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. concurring), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 , 106 S.Ct. 184 , 88 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985), wherein Judge Clinton, with Judge Miller joining, recognizes the futility of even dissenting to the majority’s continued failure to provide sentencing juries with guidance on mitigating evidence. . 1991No. 69,653 delivered October 31, 1990) (Opinion on Remand from the United States Supreme Court), Judge Clinton notes "Quinones did not raise, nor did we decide, whether he was entitled to an instruction explaining to the jury how it may give effect to any evidence that has potentially mitigating weight and significance independent of its applicability to special issues." 805 S.W.2d at 417 . [18] The Court addressed the merits of Lackey's contention even though it was raised in a multifarious ground of error. [19] See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. con | 1 | 1 |
York v. First Presbyterian Churchgreen2 sentences1991See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. concurring), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 , 106 S.Ct. 184 , 88 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985), wherein Judge Clinton, with Judge Miller joining, recognizes the futility of even dissenting to the majority’s continued failure to provide sentencing juries with guidance on mitigating evidence. . 1991No. 69,653 delivered October 31, 1990) (Opinion on Remand from the United States Supreme Court), Judge Clinton notes "Quinones did not raise, nor did we decide, whether he was entitled to an instruction explaining to the jury how it may give effect to any evidence that has potentially mitigating weight and significance independent of its applicability to special issues." 805 S.W.2d at 417 . [18] The Court addressed the merits of Lackey's contention even though it was raised in a multifarious ground of error. [19] See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. con | 1 | 1 |
Del Monte Corp. v. Blaugreen2 sentences1991See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. concurring), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 , 106 S.Ct. 184 , 88 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985), wherein Judge Clinton, with Judge Miller joining, recognizes the futility of even dissenting to the majority’s continued failure to provide sentencing juries with guidance on mitigating evidence. . 1991No. 69,653 delivered October 31, 1990) (Opinion on Remand from the United States Supreme Court), Judge Clinton notes "Quinones did not raise, nor did we decide, whether he was entitled to an instruction explaining to the jury how it may give effect to any evidence that has potentially mitigating weight and significance independent of its applicability to special issues." 805 S.W.2d at 417 . [18] The Court addressed the merits of Lackey's contention even though it was raised in a multifarious ground of error. [19] See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. con | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence1972See Green v. State, 474 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Langham v. State, 473 S.W.2d 5l5 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), and Burton v. State, 471 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). | 1 | 1 |
Hinkle v. Stategreen1 sentence1971See Hinkle v. State (Tex.Cr.App.1969), 442 S.W.2d 728, 734 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carr v. State
green
2 sentences1991Id. 1991Id. at 757 . | 2 | 1991–1991 |
James v. State
green
1 sentence1991No. 69,653 delivered October 31, 1990) (Opinion on Remand from the United States Supreme Court), Judge Clinton notes "Quinones did not raise, nor did we decide, whether he was entitled to an instruction explaining to the jury how it may give effect to any evidence that has potentially mitigating weight and significance independent of its applicability to special issues." 805 S.W.2d at 417 . [18] The Court addressed the merits of Lackey's contention even though it was raised in a multifarious ground of error. [19] See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. con | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Fierro v. State
green
1 sentence1991No. 69,653 delivered October 31, 1990) (Opinion on Remand from the United States Supreme Court), Judge Clinton notes "Quinones did not raise, nor did we decide, whether he was entitled to an instruction explaining to the jury how it may give effect to any evidence that has potentially mitigating weight and significance independent of its applicability to special issues." 805 S.W.2d at 417 . [18] The Court addressed the merits of Lackey's contention even though it was raised in a multifarious ground of error. [19] See also Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. con | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Stringer v. State
green
1 sentence1985Stringer v. State, 632 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Darden v. State, 629 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Carrillo v. State, 591 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). 11 In a multifarious ground of error appellant complains of the charge to the jury on punishment. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Carrillo v. State
green
1 sentence1985Stringer v. State, 632 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Darden v. State, 629 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Carrillo v. State, 591 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). 11 In a multifarious ground of error appellant complains of the charge to the jury on punishment. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Darden v. State
green
1 sentence1985Stringer v. State, 632 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Darden v. State, 629 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Carrillo v. State, 591 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). 11 In a multifarious ground of error appellant complains of the charge to the jury on punishment. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ely v. State
green
1 sentence1983Ely v. State, 582 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Boles v. State
green
1 sentence1983Boles v. State, 598 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Crocker v. State, supra. Insofar as this multifarious ground of error addresses the admission of testimony of appellant’s use of valium on the night before the murder it is overruled. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Whittington v. State
green
2 sentences1982Whittington v. State, *460 580 S.W.2d 845, 847 ; Bright v. State, 556 S.W.2d 317, 319 ; Kalmbach v. State, 481 S.W.2d 151 . 1982Whittington v. State, 580 S.W.2d 845, 847 ; Bright v. State, 556 S.W.2d 317, 319 ; Kalmbach v. State, 481 S.W.2d 151 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Bright v. State
green
2 sentences1982Whittington v. State, *460 580 S.W.2d 845, 847 ; Bright v. State, 556 S.W.2d 317, 319 ; Kalmbach v. State, 481 S.W.2d 151 . 1982Whittington v. State, 580 S.W.2d 845, 847 ; Bright v. State, 556 S.W.2d 317, 319 ; Kalmbach v. State, 481 S.W.2d 151 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Kalmbach v. State
green
2 sentences1982Whittington v. State, *460 580 S.W.2d 845, 847 ; Bright v. State, 556 S.W.2d 317, 319 ; Kalmbach v. State, 481 S.W.2d 151 . 1982Whittington v. State, 580 S.W.2d 845, 847 ; Bright v. State, 556 S.W.2d 317, 319 ; Kalmbach v. State, 481 S.W.2d 151 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1980Intermingled with this contention, and in fact, throughout this multifarious ground of error, is the assertion that the venirepersons excused were qualified jurors under the test enunciated by Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). 1980Intermingled with this contention, and in fact, throughout this multifarious ground of error, is the assertion that the venirepersons excused were qualified jurors under the test enunciated by Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Burton v. State
green
1 sentence1972See Green v. State, 474 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Langham v. State, 473 S.W.2d 5l5 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), and Burton v. State, 471 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). | 1 | 1972–1972 |