interpreted rule (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

interpreted rule in Texas

9 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2011 0 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich green
tex · 2009
2 sentences

2011Id.

2011Id.

32011–2011
Tanguma v. State green
texapp · 2001
2 sentences

2003This Court interpreted rule 13.1(a) in Tanguma v. State , 47 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref'd).

2003This Court interpreted rule 13.1(a) in Tanguma v. State, 47 S.W.3d 663 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. refd).

22003–2003
Davis v. State green
texcrimapp · 1994
2 sentences

1995In Davis , the court interpreted the clause in this manner: The relevant portions of Rule 40(b)(1) should be read as follows: “.... in order to prosecute an appeal for a (1) nonjurisdictional defect [occurring before or after the plea], or (2) error that occurred prior to entry of the plea, the notice shall state that the trial court granted permission to appeal or shall specify that those matters were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial....” 870 S.W.2d at 46 .

1994In Davis , the court interpreted the clause in this manner: The relevant portions of Rule 40(b)(1) should be read as follows: ". . . . in order to prosecute an appeal for a (1) nonjurisdictional defect [occurring before or after the plea], or (2) error that occurred prior to entry of the plea, the notice shall state that the trial court granted permission to appeal or shall specify that those matters were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. . . ." 870 S.W.2d at 46 .

21994–1995
Gilliam v. State green
texapp · 1989
1 sentence

1989In Gilliam v. State, 766 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, n.p.h.), this Court interpreted defense counsel’s lengthy argument about parole as waiving the error because it was part of his trial strategy. 3 I do not believe appellant here or defendant in Gilliam invited or waived the constitutional error in the charge when defense counsel mentioned parole. 4 I do not believe either of them could waive the error.

11989–1989
Empire Steel Corp. of Texas v. Omni Steel Corp. green
texapp · 1964
1 sentence

1979In Empire Steel Corp. of Texas v. Omni Steel Corp., 378 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1964, ref’d n. r. e.), the court interpreted this rule to mean that where there is doubt and uncertainty existing as to the meaning of a guaranty which would render it susceptible to two interpretations, one favorable to the guarantor, the other unfavorable, the former interpretation will be adopted in favor of the guarantor.

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

FL 14 (1977–2019) CA 10 (1989–2023) TX 9 (1979–2011) WA 7 (1908–2020) IL 7 (1969–2007) AZ 6 (1981–2014) OR 6 (1973–2018) OH 5 (1973–2020) NY 5 (1955–2008) LA 4 (1980–1998) NJ 4 (1983–2012) MI 3 (1982–2025) PA 3 (1985–2002) ID 3 (1989–2024) CT 3 (1995–2010) CO 3 (1976–1999) VT 2 (1985–1987) IN 2 (1977–2014) NC 2 (1985–1996) SC 2 (2011–2014) MN 2 (1995–1998) MA 2 (1995–1996) AL 2 (1981–1988) HI 2 (2005–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check