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 1995–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Inadigreen2 sentences2002Inadi, 475 U.S. at 394 , 106 S.Ct. at 1125 . 2002Inadi, 475 U.S. at 394 , 106 S.Ct. at 1125 . | 1 | 3 |
White v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1999First, we must consider whether an unavailability analysis is necessary under White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992). 1999First, we must consider whether an unavailability analysis is necessary under White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992). | 1 | 2 |
Ex Parte Hoodgreen1 sentence2012App. 2009). 3 Art. 11.07, § 4(a)(1). 4 Id., § 4(b) (emphasis added). 5 See also Ex parte Hood, 211 S.W.3d 767, 775 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Salazar v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See e.g., Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 155 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (holding that there was no confrontation clause violation arising from admission of excited utterance since victim was unavailable and the exception is firmly rooted, thereby providing adequate indicia of reliability); Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Penry v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See e.g., Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 155 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (holding that there was no confrontation clause violation arising from admission of excited utterance since victim was unavailable and the exception is firmly rooted, thereby providing adequate indicia of reliability); Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See also, Davis v. State, 773 S.W.2d 592 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1989). 1 Under this authority, appellant meets the unavailability requirement of Rule 804(a)(1). 2 ii.Same Parties, Charges and Issues Accordingly, I would have held appellant was unavailable and, therefore, the second inquiry rests on whether the parties, charges and issues from the pre-trial hearing were the same as those at trial. 1998See also, Davis v. State, 773 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. App.Eastland 1989). [1] Under this authority, appellant meets the unavailability requirement of Rule 804(a)(1). [2] ii. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marquez v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 750 . 2008Id. at 750 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Mattox v. United States
green
1 sentence2024Barber further clarified that the unavailability exception to the confrontation clause required “prosecutorial authorities [to] have made a good-faith effort to obtain [the witness’] presence at trial.” Id. at 724–25. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ex Parte Chabot
green
1 sentence2012If any of those courts have recognized the legal basis, or issued a decision from which the legal basis could have been reasonably formulated, then the unavailability exception is not met.5 2 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ex parte Fontenot
green
1 sentence2012By raising his claim in his original application, applicant gains an advantage compared to the litigant who fails to do so: there is always the possibility that this Court will reconsider a previous (...continued) of trial.”). 10 See Ex parte Fontenot, 3 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bryan v. State
green
1 sentence1998In Bryan, 837 S.W.2d at 644 , we held when the charge and the parties involved remain constant the two proceedings are necessarily the same. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.