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 2007–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Garciagreen2 sentences2009See Garcia, 893 S.W.2d at 518 n.16; STP Nuclear Operating, 239 S.W.3d at 273 -74 n.8. 2009See Garcia , 893 S.W.2d at 518 n.16; STP Nuclear Operating , 239 S.W.3d at 273 -74 n.8. | 3 | 6 |
Combs v. STP Nuclear Operating Co.green2 sentences2011Com’n., 74 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex. 2002); see also Combs v. STP Nuclear Operating Co., 239 S.W.3d 264 , 272 n.8 (Tex. App–Austin 2007, pet. denied) (“a party making an as-applied challenge need only show that the statute is unconstitutional because of the manner in which it was applied in a particular case.”). 27 Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tex. Crim. 2011Com’n, 74 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex.2002); see also Combs v. STP Nuclear Operating Co., 239 S.W.3d 264 , 272 n. 8 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied) ("a party making an as-applied challenge need only show that the statute is unconstitutional because of the manner in which it was applied in a particular case.”). 27 . | 2 | 5 |
Scheanette v. Stategreen2 sentences2011App. 2004); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505-06 (Tex. Crim. 2011Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505-06 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (rejecting defendant’s claim that Article 37.071 violated the Eighth Amendment "because it leads the State to execute an unacceptable number of innocent defendants” as defendant failed "to demonstrate that his due process rights or his right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment have been violated by application of our death-penalty statute.”). 28 . | 2 | 2 |
Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commissiongreen2 sentences2011Com’n., 74 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex. 2002); see also Combs v. STP Nuclear Operating Co., 239 S.W.3d 264 , 272 n.8 (Tex. App–Austin 2007, pet. denied) (“a party making an as-applied challenge need only show that the statute is unconstitutional because of the manner in which it was applied in a particular case.”). 27 Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tex. Crim. 2011Com’n, 74 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex.2002); see also Combs v. STP Nuclear Operating Co., 239 S.W.3d 264 , 272 n. 8 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied) ("a party making an as-applied challenge need only show that the statute is unconstitutional because of the manner in which it was applied in a particular case.”). 27 . | 2 | 2 |
Paredes v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Com’n., 74 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex. 2002); see also Combs v. STP Nuclear Operating Co., 239 S.W.3d 264 , 272 n.8 (Tex. App–Austin 2007, pet. denied) (“a party making an as-applied challenge need only show that the statute is unconstitutional because of the manner in which it was applied in a particular case.”). 27 Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tex. Crim. 2011Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505-06 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (rejecting defendant’s claim that Article 37.071 violated the Eighth Amendment "because it leads the State to execute an unacceptable number of innocent defendants” as defendant failed "to demonstrate that his due process rights or his right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment have been violated by application of our death-penalty statute.”). 28 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2023Id. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
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.