10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cunningham v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23 , 87 S. Ct. 1920, 1925 (1967); Cunningham v. State, 500 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex. Crim. 2008Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14, 23 , 87 S. Ct. 1920, 1925 (1967); Cunningham v. State , 500 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences1973It is an undisputed rule of law that a defendant has a right to call a co-defendant as a witness, see Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); Overton v. State, 419 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). 1973It is an undisputed rule of law that a defendant has a right to call a co-defendant as a witness, see Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); Overton v. State, 419 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). | 2 | 4 |
Overton v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1925 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); Cunningham v. State, 500 S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Overton v. State, 419 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tex.Crim.App.1967). 1973It is an undisputed rule of law that a defendant has a right to call a co-defendant as a witness, see Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); Overton v. State, 419 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). | 1 | 2 |
Church Of Scientology Of California v. United States Department Of Justicegreen1 sentence2015The following case citations declare the undisputed doctrine, in fact and at law, that the word (term of art) “person” is a “general word,” and that the “people,” of whom the above- mentioned “real party in interest” is one, “are NOT bound by general words in statutes;” therefore, statutes do not apply to, operate upon or affect the above-mentioned “real party in Page 75 of 89 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNTERCOMPLAINT interest:” "The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. –– Church of Scientology | 1 | 1 |
Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co.green2 sentences2007See id. , 134 S.W.3d at 196-97 ; Herndandez , 875 S.W.2d at 693 & n.2. 2007See id. , 134 S.W.3d at 196-97 ; Herndandez , 875 S.W.2d at 693 & n.2. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
TH Investments, Inc. v. Kirby Inland Marine, L.P.
green
2 sentences2007TH Investments, Inc., 218 S.W.3d at 205 . 2007TH Investments, Inc. , 218 S.W.3d at 205 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Troy E. Nehls, Sheriff, and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Hartman Newspapers, LP D/B/A Fort Bend Herald and Texas Coaster
green
1 sentence2025That court reaffirmed the well-established and undisputed principle that, to invoke the capable of repetition exception, it must be likely that the challenged policy or act will be applied to the same individual again. 1 Id. 1 The Commissioner has likewise squarely rejected the same legal reasoning advanced by Click. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Waples-Platter Grocer Co. v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1930Waples-Platter Grocer Co. v. T. & P. Railway Co., 95 Tex. 486 , 68 S. W. 265 , 59 L. 1930Waples-Platter Grocer Co. v. T. & P. Railway Co., 95 Tex. 486 , 68 S. W. 265 , 59 L. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.