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 1979–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Varelasgreen2 sentences2012See id., citing Abdnor v. State (Abdnor II), 808 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). 2012See id. (citing Abdnor v. State (Abdnor II), 808 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Abdnor v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See id. (citing Abdnor v. State (Abdnor II), 808 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tex. Crim. 2012Compare Abdnor II, 808 S.W.2d at 478 (noting the trial court’s error for not including a requested limiting instruction on evidence of defendant’s extraneous offenses admitted to show prior inconsistent statements), with George, 890 S.W.2d at 76 (holding that a separate instruction is required, if requested by a defendant, from the trial court to the jury to not consider extraneous acts/offenses, unless it believes that the defendant committed those 7 acts/offenses beyond a reasonable doubt). | 3 | 3 |
Kirsch v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738, 746-48 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). 2010Kirsch v. State, No. PD-0379-09, 2010 WL 447437, at *6 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Geuder v. Stategreen1 sentence2024To preserve error for appellate review, the record must show that: “1) the complaining party made a timely and specific request, objection, or motion; and 2) the trial judge either ruled on the request, objection, or motion (expressly or implicitly), or he refused to rule and the complaining party objected to that refusal.” Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See George v. State, 890 S.W.2d.73, 76 (Tex.GrinuApp.1994)(holds "if the defendant so requests at the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the trial court must instruct the jury not to consider extraneous offenses evidence that was admitted for a limiting purpose unless it believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the extraneous offenses.'Almanza v. State, 686 S.W. 2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
George v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Compare Abdnor II, 808 S.W.2d at 478 (noting the trial court’s error for not including a requested limiting instruction on evidence of defendant’s extraneous offenses admitted to show prior inconsistent statements), with George, 890 S.W.2d at 76 (holding that a separate instruction is required, if requested by a defendant, from the trial court to the jury to not consider extraneous acts/offenses, unless it believes that the defendant committed those 7 acts/offenses beyond a reasonable doubt). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hammock v. State
green
1 sentence2004Hammock v. State , 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex.Cr.App.2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Forte v. State
green
1 sentence1996Fernandez cites Forte v. State, 707 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), for the proposition that because the trial court faded to include the requested limiting instruction, the charge of the court did not properly state the law. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Spencer v. Schell
green
2 sentences1979Spencer v. Schell, 107 Tex. 44 , 173 S.W. 867 (1915), Harris v. Warlick, 42 S.W. 356 (Tex. Civ.App.1897, no writ). 1979Spencer v. Schell, 107 Tex. 44 , 173 S.W. 867 (1915), Harris v. Warlick, 42 S.W. 356 (Tex. Civ.App.1897, no writ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.