71 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1915–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rachal v. Stategreen2 sentences2024App. 1996) (en banc) (“[I]t would be unreasonable to ignore trial evidence in our review of the court's suppression decision only to be confronted by the evidence in our consideration of whether the error was harmless.”); Turrubiate v. State, 415 S.W.3d 433, 438 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d) (noting that “when the State raises the suppression issues at trial ‘either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense,’ we may consider the record in its entirety.”) (quoting Rachal, 917 S.W.2d at 809 ); Matter of B.S.P., No. 04-14-00067-CV, 2014 WL 5464072 2016Rachal, 917 S.W.2d at 809 (‘Where the State raises the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant has made an election to reopen the evidence, and consideration of the relevant trial testimony is appropriate in our review.”); see also Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989). | 14 | 42 |
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Rachal, 917 S.W.2d at 809 (‘Where the State raises the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant has made an election to reopen the evidence, and consideration of the relevant trial testimony is appropriate in our review.”); see also Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989). 2014Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); see also Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 273 n.13 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).2 Failure to Signal a Turn In Issue One, Appellant argues that his lateral movement at the Y-shaped intersection did not constitute a “turn” because he did not change direction at a 90-degree angle or move out of the direct course of traffic. | 9 | 10 |
Credit Bureau Services-New Orleans v. Hydegreen2 sentences2016Rachal, 917 S.W.2d at 809 (‘Where the State raises the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant has made an election to reopen the evidence, and consideration of the relevant trial testimony is appropriate in our review.”); see also Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989). 2005Id. at 135 ; See also Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), ce rt. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989). | 3 | 3 |
Montoya v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Iniquez v. State, 374 S.W.3d 611 , 615–16 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (citing Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420 , 424–25 (Tex. Crim. 2012See Montoya, 291 S.W.3d at 424-25 . | 3 | 3 |
Marcos Turrubiate v. Stategreen2 sentences2024App. 1996) (en banc) (“[I]t would be unreasonable to ignore trial evidence in our review of the court's suppression decision only to be confronted by the evidence in our consideration of whether the error was harmless.”); Turrubiate v. State, 415 S.W.3d 433, 438 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d) (noting that “when the State raises the suppression issues at trial ‘either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense,’ we may consider the record in its entirety.”) (quoting Rachal, 917 S.W.2d at 809 ); Matter of B.S.P., No. 04-14-00067-CV, 2014 WL 5464072 2014Black, 362 S.W.3d at 635 ; Turrubiate v. State, 415 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d). 2. | 2 | 2 |
Hardesty v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Where the State raises the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant has made an election to re-open the evidence, and 14 667 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. 2009The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held "[w]here the State raises the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant has made an election to re-open the evidence, and consideration of the relevant trial testimony is appropriate in our review.” Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (citing Hardesty v. State, 667 S.W.2d 130 , 133 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)). | 1 | 8 |
Francisco Javier Iniquez v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Iniquez v. State, 374 S.W.3d 611 , 615–16 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (citing Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420 , 424–25 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Armendariz v. Stategreen1 sentence2011App. 2007); Armendariz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. Ex Rel. Sunbelt Federal Savingsgreen1 sentence2011See Barr , 837 S.W.2d at 628 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stevensgreen1 sentence2011App.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 (1996). 6 this general rule is inapplicable when the parties consensually relitigated the suppression issue during trial on the merits.16 If the State raised the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant is deemed to have elected to re-open the evidence, and we may consider the relevant trial testimony in our review.17 We must uphold the trial court‘s ruling if it is supported by the record and correct under any theory of law applicable to the case even if the trial court gave the wro | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Garcia v. State, 112 S.W.3d 839, 847-48 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Stategreen1 sentence2008McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Patrick Carrigan and Robert Edward Whitegreen2 sentences2004The Committee reasons that "even the most diligent attorney may be unaware of facts giving rise to a potential conflict." Id. (citing United States v. Carrigan, 543 F.2d 1053, 1058 (2d Cir.1976) (Lumbard, J., concurring)). 2004The Committee reasons that “even the most diligent attorney may be unaware of facts giving rise to a potential conflict.” Id. (citing United States v. Carrigan, 543 F.2d 1053, 1058 (2d Cir.1976) (Lumbard, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
City of San Antonio v. Hardeegreen1 sentence2002City of San Antonio v. Hardee, 70 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Busby v. Stategreen2 sentences1979In the circumstances of this case, as we have set them out at some length, we find that the trial court erred in denying appellant the opportunity he sought to show surprise and, further, hold that the finding of no surprise by the trial court, without inquiry or hearing, does not permit this Court to conclude that the exhibits were properly admitted in evidence for consideration by the jury. *694 We believe that the exhibits were harmful and prejudicial, Yates v. State, 489 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and cases cited therein, Busby v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 289 , 103 S.W. 638, 650 (Tex.Cr.App.1 1979In the circumstances of this case, as we have set them out at some length, we find that the trial court erred in denying appellant the opportunity he sought to show surprise and, further, hold that the finding of no surprise by the trial court, without inquiry or hearing, does not permit this Court to conclude that the exhibits were properly admitted in evidence for consideration by the jury. *694 We believe that the exhibits were harmful and prejudicial, Yates v. State, 489 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and cases cited therein, Busby v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 289 , 103 S.W. 638, 650 (Tex.Cr.App.1 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dinwiddie v. United States
green
2 sentences2011App.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 (1996). 6 this general rule is inapplicable when the parties consensually relitigated the suppression issue during trial on the merits.16 If the State raised the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant is deemed to have elected to re-open the evidence, and we may consider the relevant trial testimony in our review.17 We must uphold the trial court‘s ruling if it is supported by the record and correct under any theory of law applicable to the case even if the trial court gave the wro 2007Id. | 5 | 2003–2011 |
Gutierrez v. State
green
2 sentences2011App.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 (1996). 6 this general rule is inapplicable when the parties consensually relitigated the suppression issue during trial on the merits.16 If the State raised the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant is deemed to have elected to re-open the evidence, and we may consider the relevant trial testimony in our review.17 We must uphold the trial court‘s ruling if it is supported by the record and correct under any theory of law applicable to the case even if the trial court gave the wro 2009Id. (citing Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Where the State raises the issue at trial either without objection or with subsequent participation in the inquiry by the defense, the defendant has made an election to re-open the evidence, and consideration of the relevant trial testimony is appropriate in our review.”)). 1 Community Caretaking . | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman
green
2 sentences2011We simply conclude that, by not seeking an award of attorney’s fees, Russell has not sought the relief that would potentially be available if this court followed Mata and found a statutory waiver of immunity for apportionment actions under section 417.003. *836 Although we do not reach an analysis of whether immunity has been waived for apportionment actions under section 417.003 of the Labor Code, we note that the supreme court’s recent decision in Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman, 342 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.2011) that immunity is no longer available for retaliatory-discharge claims would 2011Although we do not reach an analysis of whether immunity has been waived for apportionment actions under section 417.003 of the Labor Code, we note that the supreme court’s recent decision in Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman , No. 09-0100, 2011 WL 1652133 (Tex. Apr. 29, 2011) that immunity is no longer available for retaliatory-discharge claims would seem to apply equally to an inquiry of whether immunity is waived for apportionment actions under section 417.003 of the Labor Code. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Freda v. State
green
2 sentences2000The inquiry under the doctrine of variance is whether a "variance was such as to mislead the defendant to his prejudice." Id. 1998The inquiry under the doctrine of variance is whether a “variance was such as to mislead the defendant to his prejudice.” Id. | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Loeffler v. Lytle Independent School District
green
1 sentence2024Reasonable Inquiry Required The test to determine whether a document is groundless is an objective one: Did “the party and counsel [make] a reasonable inquiry into the legal and factual basis of the claim at the time the [instrument] was filed.” Loeffler, 211 S.W.3d at 348 (citing In re United Servs. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Baynes
green
1 sentence2015Pro-se alligations are accepted as true, unless they are clearly frivolous.(see, United States v. Baynes, 622 F. 2d 66 (3rd Cir. 1980). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Black v. State
green
1 sentence2014Black, 362 S.W.3d at 635 ; Turrubiate v. State, 415 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d). 2. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Cuyler v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2004They state, however, that "it by no means follows that the inquiry provided for by rule 44(c) is unnecessary." Id. 2004They state, however, that “it by no means follows that the inquiry provided for by rule 44(c) is unnecessary.” Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences1994E.g., Wright v. State, 832 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992). 1994E.g., Wright v. State, 832 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Denham v. State
green
1 sentence1979In doing so, the court expressed the view, “We are not supposed to have a hearing on that . . . ” and reiterated its denial of an opportunity for appellant to do so. 21 Denham v. State, supra, is regarded as the genesis of the proposition that a violation of Section 3 is not perceived “when the trial judge . . . finds after an inquiry into the matter that the appellant was not unfairly surprised,” 428 S.W.2d at 817 . 22 Here, however, while the trial court heard objections to and justifications for admitting the exhibits and discussed them outside the presence of the jury, the court did not co | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Yates v. State
green
1 sentence1979In the circumstances of this case, as we have set them out at some length, we find that the trial court erred in denying appellant the opportunity he sought to show surprise and, further, hold that the finding of no surprise by the trial court, without inquiry or hearing, does not permit this Court to conclude that the exhibits were properly admitted in evidence for consideration by the jury. *694 We believe that the exhibits were harmful and prejudicial, Yates v. State, 489 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and cases cited therein, Busby v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 289 , 103 S.W. 638, 650 (Tex.Cr.App.1 | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Nicholson v. Showalter
neutral
1 sentence1921In the case of Texas Western Railway Co. v. Wilson, 83 Tex. 157 , 18 S. W. 326 , upon the inquiry whether the claim to and exercise of the right was adverse to the owner of the land, the court say: “The testimony of John T. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Flournoy
green
2 sentences1916The following cases seem to assert a contrary principle: Fire Ass’n of Phila. v. Flournoy, 84 Tex. 632 , 19 S. W. 793 , 31 Am. 1916The following cases seem to assert a contrary principle: Fire Ass’n of Phila. v. Flournoy, 84 Tex. 632 , 19 S. W. 793 , 31 Am. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Bacon v. O'Connor
neutral
2 sentences1915We, of course, admit the rule that if a purchaser has information and pursues a proper inquiry, and ascertains facts which will satisfy a prudent man that there is no defect of title, he can still be an innocent purchaser (Bacon v. O'Connor, 25 Tex. 213 ); and it is likewise the rule, of course, that though inquiry has not been made, but if it had been and notice of defect would not have been discovered, the result is the same (Bowles v. Belt, 159 S.W. 887). 1915We, of course, admit the rule that if a purchaser has information and pursues a proper inquiry,, and ascertains facts which will satisfy a prudent man that there is no defect of title, he can still be an innocent purchaser (Bacon v. O'Connor, 25 Tex. 213 ); and it is likewise the rule, of course, that though inquiry has not been made, but if it had been and notice of defect would not have been discovered, the result is the same (Bowles v. Belt, 159 S. W. 887). [6] Viewing it as the jury could have viewed it, it is at least inferable that the appellants knew that Moseley deeded to Hall and Hall | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.