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 2 courts 1984–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nicholson v. Hermangreen1 sentence2020Id.; see also Nicholson, 986 S.W.2d at 63 (“Under ordinary circumstances, Texas landowners do not have a duty to warn their guests about the presence and behavior patterns of every species of indigenous wild animals and plants which pose a potential threat to a person’s safety . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Scott
green
2 sentences2005The reasoning underlying the rule, the court noted, was that a defendant's motion for mistrial is considered "a deliberate election on his part to forego his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact." Id. at 698 (quoting United States v. Scott , 437 U.S. 82, 93 , 98 S.Ct. 2187 , 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978)). 2005The reasoning underlying the rule, the court noted, was that a defendant's motion for mistrial is considered "a deliberate election on his part to forego his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact." Id. at 698 (quoting United States v. Scott , 437 U.S. 82, 93 , 98 S.Ct. 2187 , 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978)). | 7 | 1998–2005 |
Bauder v. State
red
2 sentences2005The reasoning underlying the rule, the court noted, was that a defendant's motion for mistrial is considered "a deliberate election on his part to forego his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact." Id. at 698 (quoting United States v. Scott , 437 U.S. 82, 93 , 98 S.Ct. 2187 , 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978)). 2003The reasoning underlying the rule is that a defendant’s motion for mistrial is considered “a deliberate election on his part to forego his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact.” Id. at 698 (quoting United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 93 , 98 S.Ct. 2187 , 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978)). | 7 | 1998–2005 |
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. William Nami
green
1 sentence2020The reasoning underlying the doctrine is that wild animals “exist throughout nature” and are “generally not predictable or controllable.” Nami, 498 S.W.3d at 897 (quoting 4 AM JUR. 2d, Animals § 62 (2007)). 8 In turn, the mere fact that an indigenous wild animal has crossed a landowner’s property line does not make the landowner better able to protect an invitee than the invitee is to protect himself. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Parker and Parker Construction Co. v. Morris
green
1 sentence1984Parker, supra at 924-25 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.