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 3 courts 1986–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guzman v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Guzman v. State , 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. McBeathgreen1 sentence1995See id. at 553 . | 1 | 1 |
Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co.green1 sentence1993Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Leissner v. Schottgreen2 sentences1986See Schott v. Leissner, 659 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983), writ ref'd n.r.e. with explanation, Leissner v. Schott, 668 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1984). 1986See Schott v. Leissner, 659 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1983), writ ref'd n.r.e. with explanation, Leissner v. Schott, 668 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Schott v. Leissnergreen2 sentences1986See Schott v. Leissner, 659 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983), writ ref'd n.r.e. with explanation, Leissner v. Schott, 668 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1984). 1986See Schott v. Leissner, 659 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1983), writ ref'd n.r.e. with explanation, Leissner v. Schott, 668 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Andrew Jackson Robertson
green
2 sentences2024United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 , 1365–66 (5th Cir. 1978). 1988To this end, the Court concluded, a two-tiered analysis should be applied, wherein the trial court must determine “first, whether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion, and, second, whether the accused’s expectation was reasonable, given the totality of the objective circumstances.” Robertson, supra, at 1366 . | 3 | 1988–2024 |
Almanza v. State
green
2 sentences1989In the original Rose opinion, the concurring judges applied the two-tiered test of Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (opinion on reh’g), in determining whether the error was harmful. 1988In the two short years since the advent of the understanding of error in jury instructions elucidated in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) (opinion on rehearing), over three hundred reported cases have used the two-tiered analysis in jury charge error. | 3 | 1987–1989 |
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.