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.
9 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monroe v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Parsons, 109 S.W. at 247 (“The fact that no arrest was attempted by [the deputy sheriff] tends to show that no official action was intended.”); see also Monroe v. State, 465 S.W.2d 757 , 758–59 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Lrgreen1 sentence2020See In re L.R., 324 S.W.3d 885,888 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, orig. proceeding) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 986 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Harrell v. Harrellgreen1 sentence2020See In re L.R., 324 S.W.3d 885,888 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, orig. proceeding) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 986 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
in Re University of the Incarnate Wordgreen1 sentence2019See In re Univ. of the Incarnate Word, 469 S.W.3d 255, 259 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, 8 orig. proceeding) (noting that Section 51.014(b)’s stay of “all other proceedings in the trial court” is violated if the trial court conducts hearings and signs orders while the stay is in effect). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Ultimately, the fact finder must decide whether the extraneous offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.15 12 See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“When evidence of extraneous offenses has been offered, regardless of the respective phase of a trial, the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). 13 See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 953 ; Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 14 Thompson, 4 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 , 160–61 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)) 15 Davis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 90 | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Ultimately, the fact finder must decide whether the extraneous offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.15 12 See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“When evidence of extraneous offenses has been offered, regardless of the respective phase of a trial, the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). 13 See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 953 ; Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 14 Thompson, 4 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 , 160–61 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)) 15 Davis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 90 2015Ultimately, the fact finder must decide whether the extraneous offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.15 12 See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“When evidence of extraneous offenses has been offered, regardless of the respective phase of a trial, the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). 13 See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 953 ; Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 14 Thompson, 4 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 , 160–61 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)) 15 Davis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 90 | 1 | 1 |
Shepherd v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Ultimately, the fact finder must decide whether the extraneous offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.15 12 See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“When evidence of extraneous offenses has been offered, regardless of the respective phase of a trial, the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). 13 See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 953 ; Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 14 Thompson, 4 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 , 160–61 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)) 15 Davis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 90 2015Ultimately, the fact finder must decide whether the extraneous offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.15 12 See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“When evidence of extraneous offenses has been offered, regardless of the respective phase of a trial, the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). 13 See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 953 ; Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 14 Thompson, 4 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 , 160–61 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)) 15 Davis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 90 | 1 | 1 |
Armstead v. Stategreen2 sentences1986If we could not now by our own order cure what may have been original error by the trial court conducting such hearing without proper order from this Court, then a different question would be presented.” Armstead, supra at 100 , quoting Armstead v. State, 677 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1984). 1986If we could not now by our own order cure what may have been original error by the trial court conducting such hearing without proper order from this Court, then a different question would be presented." Armstead, supra at 100 , quoting Armstead v. State, 677 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex. App.El Paso 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Paul v. Stategreen2 sentences1982See Paul v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 544 S.W.2d 668 ; Ballard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 267 . 1982See Paul v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 544 S.W.2d 668 ; Ballard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 567 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas, the State Of v. Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Dollars and No/100 ($30,660.00) in U.S. Currency
green
1 sentence2019Id. art. 59.04(l). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2015Ultimately, the fact finder must decide whether the extraneous offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.15 12 See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“When evidence of extraneous offenses has been offered, regardless of the respective phase of a trial, the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). 13 See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 953 ; Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 14 Thompson, 4 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 , 160–61 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)) 15 Davis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 90 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Harrell v. State
green
1 sentence2015Ultimately, the fact finder must decide whether the extraneous offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.15 12 See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“When evidence of extraneous offenses has been offered, regardless of the respective phase of a trial, the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). 13 See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 953 ; Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). 14 Thompson, 4 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 , 160–61 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)) 15 Davis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 90 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Disco MacHine of Liberal Co. v. Payton
green
1 sentence2002As support for the relief requested, the Cordovas cite to Disco Machine of Liberal Co. v. Payton , 900 S.W.2d 71 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1995, no writ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Armstead v. State
red
2 sentences1986If we could not now by our own order cure what may have been original error by the trial court conducting such hearing without proper order from this Court, then a different question would be presented.” Armstead, supra at 100 , quoting Armstead v. State, 677 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1984). 1986If we could not now by our own order cure what may have been original error by the trial court conducting such hearing without proper order from this Court, then a different question would be presented." Armstead, supra at 100 , quoting Armstead v. State, 677 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex. App.El Paso 1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ballard v. State
green
1 sentence1982See Paul v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 544 S.W.2d 668 ; Ballard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 267 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.