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.
67 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Meza v. Stategreen2 sentences2002App. 1994) (reviewing the record for fundamental error when appellant failed to file a brief after notification of the default); Wade v. State , 31 S.W.3d 723, 724-25 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (doing the same); Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (doing the same and after the trial court determined that the appellant had abandoned the appeal). 2002App. 1994) (reviewing the record for fundamental error when appellant failed to file a brief after notification of the default); Wade v. State , 31 S.W.3d 723, 724-25 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (doing the same); Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (doing the same and after the trial court determined that the appellant had abandoned the appeal). | 27 | 28 |
Ashcraft v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Ashcraft v. State, 802 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no pet.); Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 , 708– 09 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.). 1 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(4) provides that an appellate court may consider an appeal in a criminal case without briefs if the trial court has found that the appellant is not indigent but has not made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief, as justice may require. 2010See Carroll v. State , 75 S.W.3d 633, 634 (Tex. App. C Waco 2002, no pet.); Ashcraft v. State , 802 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 1991, no pet.); Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App. C Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.). | 24 | 24 |
Carroll v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Carroll v. State , 75 S.W.3d 633, 634 (Tex. App. C Waco 2002, no pet.); Ashcraft v. State , 802 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 1991, no pet.); Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App. C Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.). 2009See Carroll v. State , 75 S.W.3d 633, 634 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, no pet.); Ashcraft v. State , 802 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1991, no pet.); Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.). | 13 | 16 |
Lott v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. 2019See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. | 8 | 8 |
Burton v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Burton, 267 S.W.3d at 103 ; see also Schwartzkopf, 2022 WL 3714518 , at *1. 2019See Burton, 267 S.W.3d at 103 . | 4 | 4 |
Wade v. State of Texasgreen2 sentences2002App. 1994) (reviewing the record for fundamental error when appellant failed to file a brief after notification of the default); Wade v. State , 31 S.W.3d 723, 724-25 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (doing the same); Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (doing the same and after the trial court determined that the appellant had abandoned the appeal). 2002App. 1994) (reviewing the record for fundamental error when appellant failed to file a brief after notification of the default); Wade v. State , 31 S.W.3d 723, 724-25 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (doing the same); Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-09 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (doing the same and after the trial court determined that the appellant had abandoned the appeal). | 3 | 3 |
Alakhras v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Alakhras v. State, 73 S.W.3d 434, 436 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). 2013See Alakhras v. State, 73 S.W.3d 434, 436 (Tex. App.– Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). | 2 | 3 |
Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See, e.g. , Lopez v. State , 708 S.W.2d 446 , 448–49 (Tex. Crim. 2005See, e.g., Lopez v. State, 708 S.W.2d 446, 448-49 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Sanchez v. State, 788 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences1985See Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (en banc). 1983See Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). | 2 | 2 |
Almanza v. Statered2 sentences2021Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . 6 Even assuming without deciding the trial court erred when it sustained the State’s hearsay objections, upon review of the record for fundamental error, we conclude the comment and rulings at issue did not affect Arrington’s substantial rights. 2013Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Watkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See id. (citing Watkins v. State, 155 S.W.3d 631 , 634–35 & 634 n.5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Potier v. Stategreen1 sentence2021“Erroneous evidentiary rulings rarely rise to the level of denying the fundamental constitutional rights to present a meaningful defense.” Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 663 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Saldano v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See id. at 888–89. 3 We have carefully reviewed the record for fundamental error, but have found none. | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Lopez v. State, 708 S.W.2d 446, 448-49 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Sanchez v. State, 788 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Roblow v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-709 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.); Allen v. State, 730 S.W.2d 374, 375-376 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.); Roblow v. State, 729 S.W.2d 358, 359 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.); TEX.R.APP.P. 74(Z); see also Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 736, 737-739 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.), where the court of appeals reviewed the record for “reversible error.” We have reviewed the indictment and note that it charges Ashcraft with injury to a child in the terms of the statute authorizing conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-709 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.); Allen v. State, 730 S.W.2d 374, 375-376 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.); Roblow v. State, 729 S.W.2d 358, 359 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.); TEX.R.APP.P. 74(Z); see also Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 736, 737-739 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.), where the court of appeals reviewed the record for “reversible error.” We have reviewed the indictment and note that it charges Ashcraft with injury to a child in the terms of the statute authorizing conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708, 708-709 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.); Allen v. State, 730 S.W.2d 374, 375-376 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.); Roblow v. State, 729 S.W.2d 358, 359 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.); TEX.R.APP.P. 74(Z); see also Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 736, 737-739 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.), where the court of appeals reviewed the record for “reversible error.” We have reviewed the indictment and note that it charges Ashcraft with injury to a child in the terms of the statute authorizing conviction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co.
neutral
2 sentences1930In the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy, 24 S.W.(2d) 462 , in passing upon a similar question, we said: “It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error.” Citing Gant v. Timmons, 78 Tex. 11 , 14 S. W. 236 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Tex. 385 , 14 S. W. 890 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. 1930In the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy, 24 S.W.(2d) 462 , in passing upon a similar question, we said: “It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error.” Citing Gant v. Timmons, 78 Tex. 11 , 14 S. W. 236 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Tex. 385 , 14 S. W. 890 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. | 3 | 1929–1930 |
Gant v. Timmons & Davis
neutral
2 sentences1930In the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy, 24 S.W.(2d) 462 , in passing upon a similar question, we said: “It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error.” Citing Gant v. Timmons, 78 Tex. 11 , 14 S. W. 236 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Tex. 385 , 14 S. W. 890 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. 1930In the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy, 24 S.W.(2d) 462 , in passing upon a similar question, we said: “It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error.” Citing Gant v. Timmons, 78 Tex. 11 , 14 S. W. 236 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Tex. 385 , 14 S. W. 890 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1930–1930 |
Bowman v. Hoffman
neutral
2 sentences1930Gant v. Timmons, 78 Tex. 11 , 14 S. W. 236 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Tex. 385 , 14 S. W. 890 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. 1930In the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy, 24 S.W.(2d) 462 , in passing upon a similar question, we said: “It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error.” Citing Gant v. Timmons, 78 Tex. 11 , 14 S. W. 236 ; Pearson v. Household Sewing Machine Co., 78 Tex. 385 , 14 S. W. 890 ; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1930–1930 |
Barham v. Combs
neutral
1 sentence2017Barham v. Combs (Civ.AppI975) 523 SW.2d 725 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Richardson v. McIntyre
neutral
1 sentence1975Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rules 414, 415; Weaver v. Ham, 429 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1968, no writ); Richardson v. McIntyre, 429 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1968, no writ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Weaver v. Ham
neutral
1 sentence1975Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rules 414, 415; Weaver v. Ham, 429 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1968, no writ); Richardson v. McIntyre, 429 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1968, no writ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Franke v. Franke
green
1 sentence1975Franke v. Franke, 373 S.W.2d 891 (Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ.App., 1963, no writ hist.). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Curlee v. Walker
green
2 sentences1946Restrictive covenants similar to those here involved have been uniformly upheld as creating a “general scheme or plan” by those platting a given area, which enters into and becomes a part of the consideration, enforceable by each purchaser; it being mutually contemplated that by such restrictions the property is made more attractive and valuable, Curlee v. Walker, 112 Tex. 40 , 244 S.W. 497 . 1946Restrictive covenants similar to those here involved have been uniformly upheld as creating a “general scheme or plan” by those platting a given area, which enters into and becomes a part of the consideration, enforceable by each purchaser; it being mutually contemplated that by such restrictions the property is made more attractive and valuable, Curlee v. Walker, 112 Tex. 40 , 244 S.W. 497 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. v. Village Mills Co.
neutral
1 sentence1941The briefs reveal the matters at issue and require us to search the record for fundamental error “apparent upon the face of the record.” Harlington Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Car Co., Tex.Com.App., 209 S.W. 145 , Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. v. Village Mills Co., Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 869 ; Republic Ins. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Republic Ins. Co. v. Dickson
neutral
1 sentence1941Co. v. Dickson, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 899 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Harlington Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Car Co.
neutral
1 sentence1941The briefs reveal the matters at issue and require us to search the record for fundamental error “apparent upon the face of the record.” Harlington Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Car Co., Tex.Com.App., 209 S.W. 145 , Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. v. Village Mills Co., Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 869 ; Republic Ins. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
McGraw v. Albracht
neutral
1 sentence1940McGraw v. Albracht, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 1112 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Slama v. Mills
neutral
1 sentence1939Slama v. Mills, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 426 . | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Shoemaker v. Tedford neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Brown v. Spector green | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Halbert v. Toyah Valley Bank neutral | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Bason v. Bason neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Russell v. Oliver neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Haynes v. J. F. Radford Grocery Company neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Kimball green | 1 | 1928–1928 |
| Kenedy Mercantile Co. v. Ainsworth neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
| Mangum v. Thurman neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Robinson v. Hill neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Rishworth v. Moss green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.