10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fullbright v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See id.; Fullbright v. State, 818 S.W.2d 808, 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding that an aggravated assault conviction used to enhance an aggravated robbery conviction was unauthorized by law and thus “void,” because the aggravated assault sentence of five years probation was not within the statutory punishment range, despite the fact that the sentence was more lenient than the statutory punishment range). 1 After considering evi- denee and the arguments of counsel, the trial court denied Rhodes’s motion, observing that this issue presents “a beautiful appellate question.” The State concedes tha 2005See id.; Fullbright v. State, 818 S.W.2d 808, 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding that an aggravated assault conviction used to enhance an aggravated robbery conviction was unauthorized by law and thus "void," because the aggravated assault sentence of five years probation was not within the statutory punishment range, despite the fact that the sentence was more lenient than the statutory punishment range). [1] After considering evidence *352 and the arguments of counsel, the trial court denied Rhodes's motion, observing that this issue presents "a beautiful appellate question." The State concede | 2 | 2 |
Rhodes v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Id. at 887-88 . 2015The trial 5 court’s failure was that it had entered an “illegally lenient sentence.” Id. at 890 . | 1 | 3 |
Mathis v. Lockwoodgreen1 sentence2024Although we are to “construe pro se filings liberally and with patience ‘so as to obtain a just, fair and equitable adjudication of the parties’ rights,’” Housing Auth. of City of Austin v. Elbendary, 581 S.W.3d 488 , 491 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, no pet.) (quoting Veigel v. Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Found., 549 S.W.3d 193 , 195 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018, no pet.)), “pro se litigants must comply with the same rules and standards as those represented by attorneys,” id. (citing Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743, 745 (Tex. 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Plambeckgreen1 sentence2015Having determined that the trial court correctly made the determination that Walker possessed reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Rhodes for suspicion of DWI and that the trial court’s conclusion of law is supported by the record, we must uphold the trial court’s ruling to deny Rhodes’s motion to suppress and we need not address the remainder of her first issue nor her second issue at all. 14 See Stevens, 235 S.W.3d at 740 ; Armendariz, 123 S.W.3d at 404 ; see also State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365, 367 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Veigel v. Tex. Boll Weevil Eradication Found., Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Although we are to “construe pro se filings liberally and with patience ‘so as to obtain a just, fair and equitable adjudication of the parties’ rights,’” Housing Auth. of City of Austin v. Elbendary, 581 S.W.3d 488 , 491 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, no pet.) (quoting Veigel v. Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Found., 549 S.W.3d 193 , 195 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018, no pet.)), “pro se litigants must comply with the same rules and standards as those represented by attorneys,” id. (citing Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743, 745 (Tex. 2005)). 2024Although we are to “construe pro se filings liberally and with patience ‘so as to obtain a just, fair and equitable adjudication of the parties’ rights,’” Housing Auth. of City of Austin v. Elbendary, 581 S.W.3d 488 , 491 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, no pet.) (quoting Veigel v. Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Found., 549 S.W.3d 193 , 195 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018, no pet.)), “pro se litigants must comply with the same rules and standards as those represented by attorneys,” id. (citing Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743, 745 (Tex. 2005)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sanchez v. State
green
1 sentence2017“While Texas courts have never explicitly defined traveling, they generally consider the distance, time, and mode of travel.” Sanchez v. State, 122 S.W.3d 347 , 355–56 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. ref’d); see Soderman, 915 S.W.2d at 609. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Armendariz v. State
green
1 sentence2015Having determined that the trial court correctly made the determination that Walker possessed reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Rhodes for suspicion of DWI and that the trial court’s conclusion of law is supported by the record, we must uphold the trial court’s ruling to deny Rhodes’s motion to suppress and we need not address the remainder of her first issue nor her second issue at all. 14 See Stevens, 235 S.W.3d at 740 ; Armendariz, 123 S.W.3d at 404 ; see also State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365, 367 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence2015Having determined that the trial court correctly made the determination that Walker possessed reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Rhodes for suspicion of DWI and that the trial court’s conclusion of law is supported by the record, we must uphold the trial court’s ruling to deny Rhodes’s motion to suppress and we need not address the remainder of her first issue nor her second issue at all. 14 See Stevens, 235 S.W.3d at 740 ; Armendariz, 123 S.W.3d at 404 ; see also State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365, 367 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Marin v. State
green
2 sentences2012ANALYSIS Hernandez v. State: Deportation and Banishment In Hernandez, the appellant’s felony probation was revoked for a violation of the Id. 15 Speth II, supra, at 534. 16 See 240 S.W.3d 882, 891 (Tex. Crim. 2012ANALYSIS Hernandez v. State: Deportation and Banishment In Hernandez, the appellant’s felony probation was revoked for a violation of the Id. 15 Speth II, supra, at 534. 16 See 240 S.W.3d 882, 891 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kimball v. Brothers
green
1 sentence1988Sec. 10.01; Kimball v. Brothers, 741 S.W.2d at 372 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ex Parte Rhodes
green
1 sentence1962The order transferring Sherrill’s action (which the Supreme Court summarized 352 S.W.2d 249 , 250 as seeking: “ (3) a change in the terms of the judgment as to custody of the child,” and specific visitation rights) from Karnes to Brazos County on Rhodes’ plea of privilege was rendered July 24, 1961. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.