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 1987–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Self v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“To be effective, a request under Rule 404(b) ‘should be in writing and served on the prosecution.’” Id. (citing Espinosa v. State, 853 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). 2019“The purpose behind the notice provision of this rule is to adequately make known to the defendant the extraneous offense the State intends to introduce at trial.” Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164, 176 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (citing Self v. State, 860 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref’d)). | 3 | 3 |
Pena v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Hernandez v. State, 176 S.W.3d 821, 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Pena v. State, 554 S.W.3d 242, 248 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Hernandez v. State, 176 S.W.3d 821, 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Pena v. State, 554 S.W.3d 242, 248 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Espinosa v. Stategreen1 sentence2019“To be effective, a request under Rule 404(b) ‘should be in writing and served on the prosecution.’” Id. (citing Espinosa v. State, 853 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. Stategreen1 sentence2019“The purpose behind the notice provision of this rule is to adequately make known to the defendant the extraneous offense the State intends to introduce at trial.” Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164, 176 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (citing Self v. State, 860 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref’d)). | 1 | 1 |
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2007Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. , 134 Tex. 388, 393 , 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939). [10] As previously discussed, the policy states that breach of a notice provision does not bar coverage A unless we are prejudiced @ by the failure to comply. 2007Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. , 134 Tex. 388, 393 , 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939). [10] As previously discussed, the policy states that breach of a notice provision does not bar coverage A unless we are prejudiced @ by the failure to comply. | 1 | 1 |
Fielder v. Stategreen2 sentences1998The Waco court applied the reasoning from Werner and also from Fielder v. State, 756 S.W.2d 309, 318 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), to find that the notice requirement of rule 404(b) is applicable. 1998The Waco court applied the reasoning from Werner and also from Fielder v. State, 756 S.W.2d 309, 318 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Matlock v. Allstate Insurance Co.green1 sentence1987See Matlock v. Allstate Insurance Company, 729 S.W.2d 960 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rabbit Creek Oil Co. v. Shell Petroleum Corp.
green
2 sentences2000Rabbit Creek Oil Co. ., 66 S.W.2d at 739-40 . 2000Rabbit Creek Oil Co. , 66 S.W.2d at 739-40 . | 3 | 2000–2000 |
Pavlacka v. State
green
1 sentence2000Without Porter's testimony, the evidence was basically Baird's word against the appellant's word. [9] The dissent relies on Pavlacka v. State, 892 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), to support the notion that evidence of an extraneous offense is admissible to rehabilitate the credibility of the complainant when the evidence comes from an independent source. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.