69 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barney v. Stategreen2 sentences2010The same conclusion was reached in Barney v. State , 698 S.W.2d 114, 125 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985), in which the court determined that an instruction to disregard a reference to appellant’s status as an “ex-con” sufficiently cured any error. 2009The same conclusion was reached in Barney v. State , 698 S.W.2d 114, 125 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985), in which the court determined that an instruction to disregard a reference to appellant’s status as an “ex-con” sufficiently cured any error. | 8 | 8 |
Kyte v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Id. at 681-82 ; see also Kyte, 944 S.W.2d at 29 (reversing conviction although drugs found in car that defendant was driving). 2002Id. at 681-82 ; see also Kyte, 944 S.W.2d at 29 (reversing conviction although drugs found in car that defendant was driving). | 3 | 3 |
Schutz v. Stategreen2 sentences2015(See Pp. 5-7 of Memorandum Opinion; citing Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 443 (Tex. Crim. 2014(See Pp. 5-7 of Memorandum Opinion; citing Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 443 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Medical City Dallas, Ltd. v. Carlisle Corp.green2 sentences2013See id. at 59, 63 . 2013See id. at 59, 63 . | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Carriogreen2 sentences2013Application of Laches in the Post-Conviction Context A. This Court Has Previously Applied Federal Standard In Analyzing Laches In Ex parte Carrio, this Court determined that the doctrine of laches was appropriate for application in the habeas corpus context. 992 S.W.2d 486, 487-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (“[T]he doctrine of laches is a theory which we may, and should, employ in our determination of whether to grant relief in any given 11.07 case.”). 2013Application of Laches in the Post-Conviction Context A. This Court Has Previously Applied Federal Standard In Analyzing Laches In Ex p arte Carrio , this Court determined that the doctrine of laches was appropriate for application in the habeas corpus context. 992 S.W.2d 486, 487-88 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2012Given the fact that, at the time the documents were presented, the court had little or no information regarding the authors' qualifications to give the expert opinions set forth in the documents, see id. 702 (requiring expert witness to be qualified to give expert testimony "by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education"), or regarding the reliability of the opinions, see id. ; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995), we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the hearsay exceptions did not apply and exclu 2012Given the fact that, at the time the documents were 44 presented, the court had little or no information regarding the authors’ qualifications to give the expert opinions set forth in the documents, see id. 702 (requiring expert witness to be qualified to give expert testimony “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”), or regarding the reliability of the opinions, see id.; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995), we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the hearsay exceptions did not apply and excl | 2 | 2 |
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.green2 sentences2012Given the fact that, at the time the documents were presented, the court had little or no information regarding the authors' qualifications to give the expert opinions set forth in the documents, see id. 702 (requiring expert witness to be qualified to give expert testimony "by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education"), or regarding the reliability of the opinions, see id. ; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995), we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the hearsay exceptions did not apply and exclu 2012Given the fact that, at the time the documents were presented, the court had little or no information regarding the authors' qualifications to give the expert opinions set forth in the documents, see id. 702 (requiring expert witness to be qualified to give expert testimony "by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education"), or regarding the reliability of the opinions, see id. ; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995), we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the hearsay exceptions did not apply and exclu | 2 | 2 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2009White, 208 S.W.3d 467, 468 (b) An omission that causes a condition described by Subsection (a)(1) through (a)(3) is conduct constituting an offense under this section if: (1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or (2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual. 2009White , 208 S.W.3d 467, 468 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). | 2 | 2 |
Reyes v. Statered1 sentence2025See 938 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Rose v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 1 |
| Lisney v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 1 |
| Cordova v. Bacagreen | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Virgilgreen2 sentences2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( 2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 1 |
| Vinson & Elkins v. Morangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| B-R Dredging Co. v. Rodriguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anglo Exploration Corp. v. Grayshongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brem v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hullum v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hurley v. United States
green
2 sentences2007App.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 931 , 115 S.Ct. 323 , 130 L.Ed.2d 284 (1994), the Court determined that test was sufficiently reliable to be admitted if a proper predicate was laid, and in order for testimony concerning a defendant's performance on the test to be admissible: . . . it must be shown that the witness testifying is qualified as an expert on the HGN test, specifically concerning its administration and technique. 2003App.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 931 , 115 S.Ct. 323 , 130 L.Ed.2d 284 (1994), the Court determined that test was sufficiently reliable to be admitted if a proper predicate was laid, and in order for testimony concerning a defendant's performance on the test to be admissible: . . . it must be shown that the witness testifying is qualified as an expert on the HGN test, specifically concerning its administration and technique. | 4 | 2003–2007 |
Mount v. El Dorado County Superior Court
green
2 sentences2007App.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 931 , 115 S.Ct. 323 , 130 L.Ed.2d 284 (1994), the Court determined that test was sufficiently reliable to be admitted if a proper predicate was laid, and in order for testimony concerning a defendant's performance on the test to be admissible: . . . it must be shown that the witness testifying is qualified as an expert on the HGN test, specifically concerning its administration and technique. 2007App.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 931 , 115 S.Ct. 323 , 130 L.Ed.2d 284 (1994), the Court determined that test was sufficiently reliable to be admitted if a proper predicate was laid, and in order for testimony concerning a defendant's performance on the test to be admissible: . . . it must be shown that the witness testifying is qualified as an expert on the HGN test, specifically concerning its administration and technique. | 4 | 2003–2007 |
Pugh v. General Terrazzo Supplies, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 94 . 2012Id. at 94 . | 3 | 2012–2012 |
Harris County Appraisal District v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 92 . 2011Id. at 92 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Bair Chase Property Co. v. S & K Development Co.
green
2 sentences2010Id. 14 . 2010Id. 22 when not delivered to the obligor before the obligor communicates notice of a violation to the creditor‖). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In the Interest of De La Pena
green
2 sentences2009In re De La Pena , 999 S.W.2d at 527 . 2009In re De La Pena, 999 S.W.2d at 527 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Dixon v. State
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 681-82 ; see also Kyte, 944 S.W.2d at 29 (reversing conviction although drugs found in car that defendant was driving). 2002Id. at 681-82 ; see also Kyte, 944 S.W.2d at 29 (reversing conviction although drugs found in car that defendant was driving). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
The PEOPLE v. Moore
green
2 sentences1970The court cited People v. Speck, supra, and People v. Moore, 42 Ill.2d 73 , 246 N.E.2d 299 , in support of its holding. 1970The court cited People v. Speck, supra, and People v. Moore, 42 Ill.2d 73 , 246 N.E.2d 299 , in support of its holding. | 2 | 1970–1970 |
Rodriguez v. Thompson
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Chapman Custom Homes, Inc., and Michael B. Duncan, Trustee of the M.B. Duncan Separate Property Trust v. Dallas Plumbing Company
green
1 sentence2023Id. at *19–20. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Alabama v. White
green
2 sentences2021White, 496 U.S. at 328-29 , 110 S. Ct. at 2415 . 2021White, 496 U.S. at 328-29 , 110 S. Ct. at 2415 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Greenbriar North Section II
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 724–25. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Frank B. Hall & Co. v. Beach, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016The court determined this rule was equally applicable to Insurance Code claims and held “any contributory negligence attributable to [the insured] could not defeat recovery on its Insurance Code claims,” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( 2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Cronic
green
1 sentence2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Goffney v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( 2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Gideon v. Wainwright green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Moore v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( 2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Milton v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( 2015The Williams Court stated: “By holding that Williams’ waiver of her right to trial counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the court determined that her waiver was invalid.27 The State does not challenge this holding, and although it characterizes the error as one involving insufficient admonishments, the particular error at issue concerns instead an invalid waiver of the right to counsel.”28 24 Id at 357 citing: Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; 87 S. Ct. 824 ; 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-77 ; 106 S. Ct. 3101 ; 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) ( | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Chambers v. Maroney green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Rushen v. Spain green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hopper v. Evans green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Hasting green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Black v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Gamble v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In Re Meador green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| ICI Construction, Inc. v. Orangefield Independent School District green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Brandon v. American Sterilizer Co. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Ghazali v. Brown green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Love v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In Re Whiteley green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Corea v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Texas Department of Public Safety v. Dear green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Carranza v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Ball v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Mayo v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Flynn v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Boyd v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.