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 2005–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., id., remanded to 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Lancaster v. State, 319 S.W.3d 168, 171-72 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, pet. ref'd). 20 . 2011See, e.g., id., remanded to 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Lancaster v. State, 319 S.W.3d 168, 171-72 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, pet. ref'd). 20 . | 3 | 3 |
Lancaster v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., id., remanded to 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Lancaster v. State, 319 S.W.3d 168, 171-72 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, pet. ref'd). 20 . 2011See, e.g., id., remanded to 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Lancaster v. State, 319 S.W.3d 168, 171-72 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, pet. ref'd). 20 . | 3 | 3 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., id., remanded to 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Lancaster v. State, 319 S.W.3d 168, 171-72 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, pet. ref'd). 20 . 2011See, e.g., id., remanded to 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d); Lancaster v. State, 319 S.W.3d 168, 171-72 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, pet. ref'd). 20 . | 3 | 3 |
Blue v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See McMurrough v. State, 995 S.W.2d 944, 948 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, no pet.); accord Blue, 41 S.W.3d at 132 (holding error during voir dire that vitiated the impartiality of the jury to be reversible error). 2006See McMurrough v. State, 995 S.W.2d 944, 948 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, no pet.); accord Blue, 41 S.W.3d at 132 (holding error during voir dire that vitiated the impartiality of the jury to be reversible error). | 2 | 2 |
Wesbrook v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . 2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . | 2 | 2 |
McMurrough v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See McMurrough v. State, 995 S.W.2d 944, 948 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, no pet.); accord Blue, 41 S.W.3d at 132 (holding error during voir dire that vitiated the impartiality of the jury to be reversible error). 2006See McMurrough v. State, 995 S.W.2d 944, 948 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, no pet.); accord Blue, 41 S.W.3d at 132 (holding error during voir dire that vitiated the impartiality of the jury to be reversible error). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Department of Family & Protective Servicesgreen1 sentence2017See In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 642-43 (Tex. 2009) (stating that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is and that if the trial court fails to properly interpret the law, it abuses its discretion); Sullivan v. Abraham, 472 S.W.3d 677, 683 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014) (“Refusing to perform a mandatory duty constitutes an abuse of discretion.”), rev’d on other grounds, 488 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem Abrahamgreen1 sentence2017See In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 642-43 (Tex. 2009) (stating that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is and that if the trial court fails to properly interpret the law, it abuses its discretion); Sullivan v. Abraham, 472 S.W.3d 677, 683 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014) (“Refusing to perform a mandatory duty constitutes an abuse of discretion.”), rev’d on other grounds, 488 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Richgreen1 sentence2015The Court so held because there was no evidence that Rich was innocent of the offense used to enhance his punishment, and the mischaracterization of the offense used for enhancement did not make Rich innocent of the primary offense for which he was charged.19 Further, Rich’s claims did not involve the “traditional hallmarks of actual innocence claims—newly discovered evidence showing that the defendant is being wrongfully imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit.” 20 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 511 (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 |
|---|---|---|
McCarthy v. State
green
2 sentences2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . 2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem Abraham
green
1 sentence2017See In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 642-43 (Tex. 2009) (stating that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is and that if the trial court fails to properly interpret the law, it abuses its discretion); Sullivan v. Abraham, 472 S.W.3d 677, 683 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014) (“Refusing to perform a mandatory duty constitutes an abuse of discretion.”), rev’d on other grounds, 488 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. 2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re 24R, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016We conclude that the trial court could not reasonably, with “positive assurance,” have determined that the arbitration provision is not susceptible of an interpretation that would cover the dispute about Santa Fe’s payments to Rich with respect to the Lincoln General litigation, see id. at 899 , and that,' accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Rich’s motion to compel with respect to the Receiver’s common-law claims arising under the legal services agreement, see In re 2J/.R, Inc., 324 S.W.3d at 566 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Prudential Securities Inc. v. Marshall
green
1 sentence2016We conclude that the trial court could not reasonably, with “positive assurance,” have determined that the arbitration provision is not susceptible of an interpretation that would cover the dispute about Santa Fe’s payments to Rich with respect to the Lincoln General litigation, see id. at 899 , and that,' accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Rich’s motion to compel with respect to the Receiver’s common-law claims arising under the legal services agreement, see In re 2J/.R, Inc., 324 S.W.3d at 566 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ex Parte Elizondo
green
2 sentences2015The Court so held because there was no evidence that Rich was innocent of the offense used to enhance his punishment, and the mischaracterization of the offense used for enhancement did not make Rich innocent of the primary offense for which he was charged.19 Further, Rich’s claims did not involve the “traditional hallmarks of actual innocence claims—newly discovered evidence showing that the defendant is being wrongfully imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit.” 20 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Tex. Crim. 2015The Court so held because there was no evidence that Rich was innocent of the offense used to enhance his punishment, and the mischaracterization of the offense used for enhancement did not make Rich innocent of the primary offense for which he was charged.19 Further, Rich’s claims did not involve the “traditional hallmarks of actual innocence claims—newly discovered evidence showing that the defendant is being wrongfully imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit.” 20 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.