10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saglimbeni v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Saglimbeni , 100 S.W.3d at 435-36 (citations omitted). 2007Saglimbeni, 100 S.W.3d at 435-36 (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Roberts v. Stategreen1 sentence1998The State observes that harm analysis is appropriate unless the record does not provide “any concrete data from which an appellate court can meaningfully gauge or quantify the effect of the error.” Sodipo, 815 S.W.2d at 554 ; Roberts v. State, 784 S.W.2d 430, 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. State
green
2 sentences1999In determining whether egregious harm oc- *309 eurred, this Court must review the error “in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . 1997In determining whether egregious harm occurred, this Court must review the error “in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial court as a whole.” Almanza, supra; Bailey v. State, 867 S.W.2d 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). | 3 | 1997–2015 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2012Id. | 2 | 2012–2016 |
Shelby v. State
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sodipo v. State
green
1 sentence1998The State observes that harm analysis is appropriate unless the record does not provide “any concrete data from which an appellate court can meaningfully gauge or quantify the effect of the error.” Sodipo, 815 S.W.2d at 554 ; Roberts v. State, 784 S.W.2d 430, 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bailey v. State
green
1 sentence1997In determining whether egregious harm occurred, this Court must review the error “in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial court as a whole.” Almanza, supra; Bailey v. State, 867 S.W.2d 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). | 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.