Montgomery factors in Texas

64 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1992–2026 10 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 (30)

Case	Followed	Cited
Montgomery v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1991 · cited in 38 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–2026 2 sentences 2026We utilize the Montgomery factors in our determination of whether evidence is admissible under Rule 403: “(1) the strength of the evidence’s probative value, (2) the potential for the evidence to ‘impress the jury in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way,’ (3) [t]he amount of time required at trial to develop the evidence, and (4) the proponent’s need for the evidence.” Hart, 688 S.W.3d at 891 (quoting Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389–90). 2026We utilize the Montgomery factors in our determination of whether evidence is admissible under Rule 403: “(1) the strength of the evidence’s probative value, (2) the potential for the evidence to ‘impress the jury in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way,’ (3) [t]he amount of time required at trial to develop the evidence, and (4) the proponent’s need for the evidence.” Hart, 688 S.W.3d at 891 (quoting Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389–90).	11	38
Wheeler v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 6 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487, 506 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Mo ntgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 873 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. refd). 2016Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487, 506 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Mo ntgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 873 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. refd).	6	6
Newton v. Stategreen texapp · 2010 · cited in 6 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2011 2 sentences 2011Newton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, pet. ref’d) (footnote omitted). 2011Newton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, pet. ref’d) (footnote omitted).	6	6
Sunbury v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2014 2 sentences 2014Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see also Sunbury v. State, 88 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (noting that trial judge did not exercise his discretion under rule 403 and did not weigh probative value against any rule 403 counterfac-tors); Lamb v. State, 186 S.W.3d 136, 144 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (noting Sunbury’s suggestion that Montgomery factors apply to rule 403 decisions on punishment evidence). 2013See Mozon, 991 S.W.2d at 847 ; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see also Sunbury v. State, 88 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tex. *200 Crim.App.2002) (suggesting in dicta that the Montgomery factors apply to rule 403 decisions on punishment evidence).	5	5
Stafford v. Stategreen texapp · 2008 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2010 2 sentences 2010Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. ref'd); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. ref'd); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors). 3 As with his Rule 404(b) complaint, Newton’s primary contention is that the probative value of the extraneous-offense evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because of the 2010App. 2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors).	5	5
Subirias v. Stategreen texapp · 2008 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2010 2 sentences 2010Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. ref'd); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. ref'd); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors). 3 As with his Rule 404(b) complaint, Newton’s primary contention is that the probative value of the extraneous-offense evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because of the 2010App. 2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors).	5	5
Brock v. Stategreen texapp · 2009 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2010 2 sentences 2010Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. ref'd); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. ref'd); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors). 3 As with his Rule 404(b) complaint, Newton’s primary contention is that the probative value of the extraneous-offense evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because of the 2010App. 2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors).	5	5
Gigliobianco v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2006 · cited in 8 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2026 2 sentences 2015App. 2007); see also, Keller v. State, No. 03-13-00501-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12506 at 13-14 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem.op., not designated for publication) (not binding, but persuasive in that this Court quotes the Gigliobianco balancing factors as still authoritative in contrast to the Montgomery test on which Appellant relies). 107 Gigliobianco, 210 S.W.3d at 641-642 . 26 Rule 403 Factors 1) As discussed Section II(A) supra, the testimony of a serious prior accident in similar conditions close to this location on the same Interstate was highly probative for the jury i 2015App. 2007); see also, Keller v. State, No. 03-13-00501-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12506 at 13-14 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem.op., not designated for publication) (not binding, but persuasive in that this Court quotes the Gigliobianco balancing factors as still authoritative in contrast to the Montgomery test on which Appellant relies). 107 Gigliobianco, 210 S.W.3d at 641-642 . 26 Rule 403 Factors 1) As discussed Section II(A) supra, the testimony of a serious prior accident in similar conditions close to this location on the same Interstate was highly probative for the jury i	4	8
Lamb v. Stategreen texapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014App. 2002) (noting that trial judge did not exercise his discretion under rule 403 and did not weigh probative value against any rule 403 counterfactors); Lamb v. State, 186 S.W.3d 136, 144 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (noting Sunbury’s suggestion that Montgomery factors apply to rule 403 decisions on punishment evidence). 2014Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see also Sunbury v. State, 88 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (noting that trial judge did not exercise his discretion under rule 403 and did not weigh probative value against any rule 403 counterfac-tors); Lamb v. State, 186 S.W.3d 136, 144 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (noting Sunbury’s suggestion that Montgomery factors apply to rule 403 decisions on punishment evidence).	2	2
State Ex Rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Districtgreen texcrimapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See id. art. 51.14, art. 2009See id. art. 51.14, art.	2	2
Fowler v. Stategreen texapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Fowler v. State , 126 S.W.3d 307, 311 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.). 2005App. 2004) (applying Montgomery factors to hold photograph inadmissible at punishment). 18: Fowler v. State , 126 S.W.3d 307, 311 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.).	2	2
Davis v. Stategreen texapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004App. 1990) (op. on reh’g). 6: See Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 (providing rule 403 balancing factors); D avis v. State , 68 S.W.3d 273, 282-83 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. ref’d) (applying the Montgomery factors to a rule 403 decision on punishment evidence); see also Sunbury v. State , 88 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tex. Crim. 2004App. 1990) (op. on reh’g). 6: See Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 (providing rule 403 balancing factors); D avis v. State , 68 S.W.3d 273, 282-83 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. ref’d) (applying the Montgomery factors to a rule 403 decision on punishment evidence); see also Sunbury v. State , 88 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tex. Crim.	2	2
Porter v. Nemirgreen texapp · 1995 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See Porter , 900 S.W.2d at 381 n.6. 1996See Porter , 900 S.W.2d at 381 n.6.	2	2
McLellan v. Bensongreen texapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See McLellan , 877 S.W.2d at 457 (advocating use of test despite its harshness). 1995See McLellan , 877 S.W.2d at 457 (advocating use of test despite its harshness).	2	2
De La Paz v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2009 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018 2 sentences 2010Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. ref'd); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. ref'd); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors). 3 As with his Rule 404(b) complaint, Newton’s primary contention is that the probative value of the extraneous-offense evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because of the 2010App. 2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors).	1	5
in Re Commitment of Dennis Ray Stutevillegreen texapp · 2015 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2025 2 sentences 2025Id.; see also In re Commitment of Renshaw, 598 S.W.3d at 314-15; In re Commitment of S.D., No. 10-17-00129-CV, 2020 WL 103721 , at 5 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan 8, 2020, no pet.); In re Commitment of Flores, No. 13-17-00258-CV, 2018 WL 1755876 , at 4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.); In re Commitment of Stuteville, 463 S.W.3d at 555 ; In re Commitment of Ford, No. 09- 11-00425, 2012 WL 983323 , at 2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 22, 2012, no pet.). 2025Id.; see also In re Commitment of Renshaw, 598 S.W.3d at 314-15; In re Commitment of S.D., No. 10-17-00129-CV, 2020 WL 103721 , at 5 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan 8, 2020, no pet.); In re Commitment of Flores, No. 13-17-00258-CV, 2018 WL 1755876 , at 4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.); In re Commitment of Stuteville, 463 S.W.3d at 555 ; In re Commitment of Ford, No. 09- 11-00425, 2012 WL 983323 , at 2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 22, 2012, no pet.).	1	2
Brendan Xavier Douglas v. Stategreen texapp · 2016 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018These factors "are known as the Montgomery factors." Douglas , 489 S.W.3d at 627 . 2018These factors "are known as the Montgomery factors." Douglas , 489 S.W.3d at 627 .	1	2
Hartsfield v. Stategreen texapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487, 506 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Mo ntgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 873 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. refd). 2016Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487, 506 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Mo ntgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 873 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. refd).	1	2
State v. Mechlergreen texcrimapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Our analysis is guided, though not limited, by the following factors, known as the Montgomery factors: “(1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the potential to impress the jury in some irrational yet indelible way; (3) the time needed to develop the evidence; and (4) the 3 proponent’s need for the evidence.” State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex. Crim. 2014Our analysis is guided, though not limited, by the following factors, known as the Montgomery factors: “(1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the potential to impress the jury in some irrational yet indelible way; (3) the time needed to develop the evidence; and (4) the 3 proponent’s need for the evidence.” State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex. Crim.	1	2
Hammer v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020See Hammer, 296 S.W.3d at 568 . 2020See Hammer, 296 S.W.3d at 568 .	1	1
McGahey v. Stategreen texapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019During the charge conference, and over Montgomery’s objection, the trial court granted the State’s request to include an instruction in its charge on the lesser offense of sexual assault.1 Id. § 22.011; McGahey v. State, 744 S.W.2d 695, 696 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1988, pet. ref’d).	1	1
Taylor v. Stategreen texapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487, 506 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Mo ntgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 873 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. refd). 2016Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487, 506 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Mo ntgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 873 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. refd).	1	1
Mozon v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See Mozon, 991 S.W.2d at 847 ; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see also Sunbury v. State, 88 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tex. 200 Crim.App.2002) (suggesting in dicta that the Montgomery factors apply to rule 403 decisions on punishment evidence). 2013See Mozon, 991 S.W.2d at 847 ; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389-90 ; see also Sunbury v. State, 88 S.W.3d 229, 235 (Tex. 200 Crim.App.2002) (suggesting in dicta that the Montgomery factors apply to rule 403 decisions on punishment evidence).	1	1
Mann v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013As observed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, “When the balancing test is applied, [same transaction evidence] is almost always admissible under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and the jury has a right to have the offense placed in its proper setting so that all evidence may be realistically evaluated.” Mann v. State, 718 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). 2013As observed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, “When the balancing test is applied, [same transaction evidence] is almost always admissible under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and the jury has a right to have the offense placed in its proper setting so that all evidence may be realistically evaluated.” Mann v. State, 718 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).	1	1
Colvin v. Stategreen texapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003However, in Montgomery , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated “the appellate court must measure the trial court’s ruling against the relevant criteria by which a Rule 403 decision is to be made.” Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 392 ; see also Colvin v. State , 54 S.W.3d 82 , 85 B 86 (Tex. App. C Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (holding that the trial court did not conduct the requisite Rule 403 balancing test regarding character evidence, and the four Montgomery factors were used to analyze harm).	1	1
Rachal v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 387 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); see also Radial v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)(following Montgomery analysis in consideration of extraneous evidence offered during punishment phase).	1	1
Harris v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997Id. 403 ; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389 ; Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). 1997Id. 403 ; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389 ; Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex.Crim.App.1989).	1	1
Pavlacka v. Stategreen texapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
Vernon v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
Lazcano v. Stategreen texapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
De La Paz v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2009 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018 2 sentences 2010Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. ref'd); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. ref'd); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors). 3 As with his Rule 404(b) complaint, Newton’s primary contention is that the probative value of the extraneous-offense evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because of the 2010App. 2006) (footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 411-12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d); but see De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 349 (applying Montgomery factors).	3	5

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
Jacobs v. Beard green scotus · 2005 2 sentences 2015App.), cert, denied, 546 U.S. 962 (2005). 18No. 13-13-00558-CR, 2014 WL 4049892 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 19/d. at-6. 10 language echoes the Montgomery test for admissibility of extraneous acts of misconduct offered in the guilt phase of a trial.20 Reviewing the record in its entirety, we note the care with which the trial court considered its evidentiary rulings throughout the entire trial. 2015App.), cert, denied, 546 U.S. 962 (2005). 18No. 13-13-00558-CR, 2014 WL 4049892 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 19/d. at-6. 10 language echoes the Montgomery test for admissibility of extraneous acts of misconduct offered in the guilt phase of a trial.20 Reviewing the record in its entirety, we note the care with which the trial court considered its evidentiary rulings throughout the entire trial.	1	2015–2015
Montgomery First Corp. v. Caprock Investment Corp. green texapp · 2002 1 sentence 2010NOTES [1] See Caprock Investment Corp. v. FDIC, 17 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied) ( Caprock I ); Montgomery First Corp. v. Caprock Investment Corp., 89 S.W.3d 179 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2002, no pet.) ( Caprock II ); and Caprock Investment Corp. v. Montgomery First Corp., No. 02-04-00155-CV, 2005 WL 3118787 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( Caprock III ), for more details regarding the parties and the history of this case. [2] We disagree with Montgomery's contention that Caprock waived this issue; Caprock addressed the issue in its brief in the argument r	1	2010–2010
Caprock Investment Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. green texapp · 2000 1 sentence 2010NOTES [1] See Caprock Investment Corp. v. FDIC, 17 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied) ( Caprock I ); Montgomery First Corp. v. Caprock Investment Corp., 89 S.W.3d 179 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2002, no pet.) ( Caprock II ); and Caprock Investment Corp. v. Montgomery First Corp., No. 02-04-00155-CV, 2005 WL 3118787 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( Caprock III ), for more details regarding the parties and the history of this case. [2] We disagree with Montgomery's contention that Caprock waived this issue; Caprock addressed the issue in its brief in the argument r	1	2010–2010
Arcila v. State green texcrimapp · 1992	1	1997–1997

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 19.02 (7) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.02 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 21.11 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.011 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 38.04 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IL 171 (1973–2025) TX 64 (1992–2026) FL 22 (1980–2023) OH 14 (2007–2026) NY 11 (1973–2018) CA 8 (1980–2024) PA 7 (2015–2022) IN 5 (2009–2015) KS 4 (2014–2026) MS 3 (2015–2018) MI 3 (1962–2025) MT 3 (2010–2010) MD 3 (1986–2018) LA 3 (2017–2018) VA 2 (2006–2017) IA 2 (2017–2020) AZ 2 (2016–2026) OR 2 (2011–2019) WA 2 (1987–2019) KY 2 (2010–2022) CO 2 (1996–2026) GA 2 (2006–2025) MO 2 (1988–2010)

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