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.
10 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanchez v. Stategreen2 sentences2011In order to show harm, applicant must show that (1) he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, (2) he requested more challenges, (3) that request was denied, and (4) he identified “an objectionable person seated on the jury on whom he would have exercised a peremptory challenge.” Sanchez v. State, 165 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). 2011In order to show harm, applicant must show that (1) he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, (2) he requested more challenges, (3) that request was denied, and (4) he identified "an objectionable person seated on the jury on whom he would have exercised a peremptory challenge." Sanchez v. State , 165 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Greenfield Energy, Inc. v. Dupreygreen1 sentence2023Fin. & Com., 260 S.W.3d at 83 (“[T]he trial court would have to indulge a prohibited presumption—that an agency relationship exists— in order to exercise personal jurisdiction based on Capital Finance’s allegations . . . .”); Greenfield Energy, 252 S.W.3d at 733-34 (concluding no agency relationship existed to support the imputation of contacts because there was no evidence of control, actual or apparent authority, or ratification); Coleman, 180 S.W.3d at 588 (“[A]gency will not be presumed, and the party asserting the relationship has the burden of proving it.”); Schultz v. Rural/Metro Corp. | 1 | 1 |
Capital Finance & Commerce AG v. Sinopec Overseas Oil & Gas, Ltd.green1 sentence2023Fin. & Com., 260 S.W.3d at 83 (“[T]he trial court would have to indulge a prohibited presumption—that an agency relationship exists— in order to exercise personal jurisdiction based on Capital Finance’s allegations . . . .”); Greenfield Energy, 252 S.W.3d at 733-34 (concluding no agency relationship existed to support the imputation of contacts because there was no evidence of control, actual or apparent authority, or ratification); Coleman, 180 S.W.3d at 588 (“[A]gency will not be presumed, and the party asserting the relationship has the burden of proving it.”); Schultz v. Rural/Metro Corp. | 1 | 1 |
Schultz v. Rural/Metro Corp.green1 sentence2023Fin. & Com., 260 S.W.3d at 83 (“[T]he trial court would have to indulge a prohibited presumption—that an agency relationship exists— in order to exercise personal jurisdiction based on Capital Finance’s allegations . . . .”); Greenfield Energy, 252 S.W.3d at 733-34 (concluding no agency relationship existed to support the imputation of contacts because there was no evidence of control, actual or apparent authority, or ratification); Coleman, 180 S.W.3d at 588 (“[A]gency will not be presumed, and the party asserting the relationship has the burden of proving it.”); Schultz v. Rural/Metro Corp. | 1 | 1 |
Buchoz v. Kleingreen1 sentence2008See Buchoz, 184 S.W.2d at 271 ; see also Meader v. IRA Res., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 338, 345-46 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (noting that “the law ... does not presume agency,” in upholding implied finding by trial court that Texas resident was not nonresident’s agent for purposes of personal jurisdiction). 20 Crediting the plaintiffs alter-ego claims in PHC-Minden and BMC Software Belgium, and the corporate-officer liability claims in Tri-State Building Specialties, without supporting proof and for purposes of personal jurisdiction, would have improperly shifted the jurisdictional | 1 | 1 |
Meader v. IRA Resources, Inc.green1 sentence2008See Buchoz, 184 S.W.2d at 271 ; see also Meader v. IRA Res., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 338, 345-46 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (noting that “the law ... does not presume agency,” in upholding implied finding by trial court that Texas resident was not nonresident’s agent for purposes of personal jurisdiction). 20 Crediting the plaintiffs alter-ego claims in PHC-Minden and BMC Software Belgium, and the corporate-officer liability claims in Tri-State Building Specialties, without supporting proof and for purposes of personal jurisdiction, would have improperly shifted the jurisdictional | 1 | 1 |
Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Garciagreen2 sentences2001To support their contention that subsection (c)’s defenses are exclusive, petitioners rely in part on our statement in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission v. Garcia that the Act “abolish[ed] all the traditional common law defenses for subscribers.” 893 S.W.2d 504, 511 (Tex.1995) (emphasis added). 2001To support their contention that subsection (c)'s defenses are exclusive, petitioners rely in part on our statement in Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Garcia that the Act "abolish[ed] all the traditional common law defenses for subscribers." 893 S.W.2d 504, 511 (Tex.1995) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
LSR Joint Venture No. 2 v. Callewartgreen1 sentence2000See id.; LSR Joint Venture No. 2 v. Callewart, 837 S.W.2d 693, 699 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fuller v. State
green
1 sentence2024In Fuller, the trial court prohibited defense counsel from asking the members of the jury panel if they understand that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden and from explaining that “clear and convincing evidence is the type of burden that might be used when someone is committed to an involuntary health institution or when someone is trying to terminate someone’s parental rights[,]” and that beyond a reasonable doubt is “higher than the preponderance of the evidence, which is just over 50 percent and that’s the kind of burden that might be used in a civil lawsuit when someone | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Commitment of Hill
green
1 sentence2024In Commitment of Hill, the trial court prohibited defense counsel from asking a commitment question when the State objected after Hill’s attorney . . . attempted to ask the panel whether, if the State proved that Hill had committed two or more violent sexual offenses, the potential jurors would convict Hill based on that evidence alone or would also require the State to prove the statute’s second element—that Hill had a behavioral abnormality predisposing him to commit such acts. 334 S.W.3d at 228 . 6 The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the trial court, concluding that “the ‘commitment’ | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Guerrero v. Standard Alloys Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence2001This is prohibited by rule 270 of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure that provides “in a jury case no evidence on a controversial matter shall be received after the verdict of the jury.” Id. (quoting Tex.R.Civ.P. 270). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.