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 1938–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Russell v. Stategreen2 sentences2018To determine whether an instruction is a comment on the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court is required “to assess the probable effect of the instruction on the jury in the context in which it was given.” O’Connell v. State, 17 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Tex. App.— Austin 2000, no pet.) (quoting Russell v. State, 749 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. 2003Ann. art. 2.03(b) (Vernon 1977); Bethany v. State , 814 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd). "[I]n determining whether an instruction is a comment on the weight of the evidence, [a reviewing court should] assess the probable effect of the instruction on the jury in the context in which it was given." O'Connell v. State , 17 S.W.3d 746, 748-49 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (quoting Russell v. State , 749 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. | 6 | 7 |
O'CONNELL v. Stategreen2 sentences2018To determine whether an instruction is a comment on the weight of the evidence, the reviewing court is required “to assess the probable effect of the instruction on the jury in the context in which it was given.” O’Connell v. State, 17 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Tex. App.— Austin 2000, no pet.) (quoting Russell v. State, 749 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. 2003Ann. art. 2.03(b) (Vernon 1977); Bethany v. State , 814 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd). "[I]n determining whether an instruction is a comment on the weight of the evidence, [a reviewing court should] assess the probable effect of the instruction on the jury in the context in which it was given." O'Connell v. State , 17 S.W.3d 746, 748-49 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (quoting Russell v. State , 749 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Delapaz v. Stategreen1 sentence2023O’Connell v. State, 17 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.); Delapaz v. State, 228 S.W.3d 183, 212 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. ref’d); see Russell, 749 S.W.2d at 79 . | 1 | 1 |
Bethany v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Ann. art. 2.03(b) (Vernon 1977); Bethany v. State , 814 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd). "[I]n determining whether an instruction is a comment on the weight of the evidence, [a reviewing court should] assess the probable effect of the instruction on the jury in the context in which it was given." O'Connell v. State , 17 S.W.3d 746, 748-49 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (quoting Russell v. State , 749 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Baileygreen1 sentence1938“The sacredness of the right to a jury trial and the delicacy of any fact inquiry as to the probable effect of the trial court’s misconduct, before the very judge against whom the complaint is made, renders the matter of such public concern as to be well within the legislative right to speak arbitrarily. * * * ” And, “the courts will not permit an inquiry into the probable effect of a violation of the statute.” Parker v. Bailey, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 1033, 1035 (expressly approved by the Supreme Court). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Housing Authority of Birmingham Dist. v. Morris
green
2 sentences1972When the purpose for which the Authority was created and the probable effect a rule of law similar to that applied to common carriers would have upon it are considered, it is readily apparent that this Court will not, by judicial fiat, impose a restriction upon the contracting power of appellee (Authority).” In Housing Authority of Birmingham Dist. v. Morris, 244 Ala. 557 , 14 So.2d 527, 1943 , the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the authority had been granted an element of sovereignty — the power of eminent domain — and the general principle that agreements exempting persons from liability 1972When the purpose for which the Authority was created and the probable effect a rule of law similar to that applied to common carriers would have upon it are considered, it is readily apparent that this Court will not, by judicial fiat, impose a restriction upon the contracting power of appellee (Authority).” In Housing Authority of Birmingham Dist. v. Morris, 244 Ala. 557 , 14 So.2d 527, 1943 , the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the authority had been granted an element of sovereignty — the power of eminent domain — and the general principle that agreements exempting persons from liability | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Belser v. Achley
neutral
1 sentence1938When the fact is established it is conclusively presumed, by reason of the statute itself, that a fair trial has not been had and evidence should not be heard to the contrary.” In Belser v. Achley, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 278 , a like conclusion was reached by reason of oral instruction to the foreman of the jury not in the hearing of the other members. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.