61 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1956–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scamardo v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763–64 (quoting Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. 2019Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763 -64 (quoting Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. | 11 | 11 |
Clewis v. Statered2 sentences2002Clewis v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126, 132 (Tex. Crim. 2002Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 132 (Tex. Crim. | 8 | 8 |
Kelly v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Through the " Daubert , Robinson , and Kelly " trilogy of cases, the high courts have developed several non-exclusive factors to analyze whether the evidence meets this standard. (4) See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 509 U.S. 579, 593-95 (1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995); Kelly v. State , 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. 2003Kelly v. State , 824 S.W.2d 568, 572-73 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2014“If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Davenport, 866 S.W.2d 767, 771 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.) (citing State v. Daniels, 761 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, pet. ref'd)). 2014“If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Davenport, 866 S.W.2d 767, 771 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993, no pet.) (citing State v. Daniels, 761 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, pet. ref’d)). | 4 | 6 |
Duncan v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Duncan v. State, 321 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex. App. ––Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d). 2015Duncan v. State, 321 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex. App. ––Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Savagegreen2 sentences2018If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d) (quoting In re State, No. 06-15-00018-CR, 2015 WL 545838 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); State v. Savage, 905 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1995), aff’d by 933 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. 2017If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref'd) (quoting State v. Savage, 905 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995), aff'd 933 S.W.2d 497 ; State v. Chavera, 386 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)). | 2 | 7 |
State v. Baldemar Chaveragreen2 sentences2018App. 1996); State v. Chavera, 386 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)). 2017If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref'd) (quoting State v. Savage, 905 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995), aff'd 933 S.W.2d 497 ; State v. Chavera, 386 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Erica Lynn Fullergreen2 sentences2018If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d) (quoting In re State, No. 06-15-00018-CR, 2015 WL 545838 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); State v. Savage, 905 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1995), aff’d by 933 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. 2017If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref'd) (quoting State v. Savage, 905 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995), aff'd 933 S.W.2d 497 ; State v. Chavera, 386 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Morenogreen2 sentences2015See id. 2012“If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” Savage , 905 S.W.2d *337 at 274; see also Moreno, 297 S.W.3d at 520 . | 2 | 2 |
Renteria v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Renteria v. State 206 S.W.3d 689, 697 (Tex. Crim. 2010This Court has previously held, in Renteria v. State,102 that the United States Constitution does not require admission of mitigating evidence when it is inadmissible under state law, even when the evidence meets the test of “constitutional relevancy.” 103 Although Texas and the United States Supreme Court have established jurisprudence that no person shall be executed without the opportunity to bring all evidence of mitigating circumstances, the United States Constitution does not require the admission of evidence if it is in a form that is otherwise objectionable.104 In other words, relevant | 1 | 2 |
State v. Davenportgreen2 sentences2014“If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Davenport, 866 S.W.2d 767, 771 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.) (citing State v. Daniels, 761 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, pet. ref'd)). 2014“If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Davenport, 866 S.W.2d 767, 771 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993, no pet.) (citing State v. Daniels, 761 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, pet. ref’d)). | 1 | 2 |
Bell v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Id. at 764 ; Bell v. State, 554 S.W.3d 742, 746 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2018, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
City of Keller v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2016See id. at 827 . | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“Viewing the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the verdict’ under a legal-sufficiency standard means the reviewing court is required to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony.” Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Skipper v. South Carolinagreen1 sentence2010This Court has previously held, in Renteria v. State,102 that the United States Constitution does not require admission of mitigating evidence when it is inadmissible under state law, even when the evidence meets the test of “constitutional relevancy.” 103 Although Texas and the United States Supreme Court have established jurisprudence that no person shall be executed without the opportunity to bring all evidence of mitigating circumstances, the United States Constitution does not require the admission of evidence if it is in a form that is otherwise objectionable.104 In other words, relevant | 1 | 1 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green1 sentence2005Through the " Daubert , Robinson , and Kelly " trilogy of cases, the high courts have developed several non-exclusive factors to analyze whether the evidence meets this standard. (4) See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 509 U.S. 579, 593-95 (1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995); Kelly v. State , 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2005Through the " Daubert , Robinson , and Kelly " trilogy of cases, the high courts have developed several non-exclusive factors to analyze whether the evidence meets this standard. (4) See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 509 U.S. 579, 593-95 (1993); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex. 1995); Kelly v. State , 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Grant v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 132 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Grant v. State, 989 S.W.2d 428, 432 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacIasgreen1 sentence1993If the evidence meets this standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial. 761 S.W.2d at 45 (emphasis added); see also State v. Macias, 791 S.W.2d 325, 329-30 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, pet. ref’d) (utilizing the same “any rational trier of fact” standard enunciated in Daniels)', State v. Stacy, 796 S.W.2d 520, 521-22 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990) (utilizing Daniels standard), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 819 S.W.2d 860, 861-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stacygreen1 sentence1993If the evidence meets this standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial. 761 S.W.2d at 45 (emphasis added); see also State v. Macias, 791 S.W.2d 325, 329-30 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, pet. ref’d) (utilizing the same “any rational trier of fact” standard enunciated in Daniels)', State v. Stacy, 796 S.W.2d 520, 521-22 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990) (utilizing Daniels standard), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 819 S.W.2d 860, 861-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Stacy v. Stategreen1 sentence1993If the evidence meets this standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial. 761 S.W.2d at 45 (emphasis added); see also State v. Macias, 791 S.W.2d 325, 329-30 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, pet. ref’d) (utilizing the same “any rational trier of fact” standard enunciated in Daniels)', State v. Stacy, 796 S.W.2d 520, 521-22 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990) (utilizing Daniels standard), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 819 S.W.2d 860, 861-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Royster v. Stategreen1 sentence1989A charge on a lesser-included offense is required if the evidence meets the test enunciated in Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (on motion for reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
In Re King's Estategreen2 sentences1987See In Re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660, 661-62 (1951). 1987See In Re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660, 661-62 (1951). | 1 | 1 |
| Reed v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rickels v. State
green
2 sentences2026Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763–64 (quoting Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. 2022Id. at 764 . | 17 | 2008–2026 |
State v. Savage
green
2 sentences2018If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d) (quoting In re State, No. 06-15-00018-CR, 2015 WL 545838 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); State v. Savage, 905 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1995), aff’d by 933 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. 2017If the evidence meets the standard, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.” State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 819 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref'd) (quoting State v. Savage, 905 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995), aff'd 933 S.W.2d 497 ; State v. Chavera, 386 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Provost
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2013 |
Moore v. Knight
green
2 sentences1956As was said in the case of Moore v. Knight, 127 Texas 610 , 94 S.W. 2d 1137 : “We think the finding of the jury was fully justified by the proof. 1956As was said in the case of Moore v. Knight, 127 Texas 610 , 94 S.W. 2d 1137 : “We think the finding of the jury was fully justified by the proof. | 2 | 1956–1956 |
Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
green
1 sentence2010This Court has previously held, in Renteria v. State,102 that the United States Constitution does not require admission of mitigating evidence when it is inadmissible under state law, even when the evidence meets the test of “constitutional relevancy.” 103 Although Texas and the United States Supreme Court have established jurisprudence that no person shall be executed without the opportunity to bring all evidence of mitigating circumstances, the United States Constitution does not require the admission of evidence if it is in a form that is otherwise objectionable.104 In other words, relevant | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Holmes v. South Carolina
green
1 sentence2010This Court has previously held, in Renteria v. State,102 that the United States Constitution does not require admission of mitigating evidence when it is inadmissible under state law, even when the evidence meets the test of “constitutional relevancy.” 103 Although Texas and the United States Supreme Court have established jurisprudence that no person shall be executed without the opportunity to bring all evidence of mitigating circumstances, the United States Constitution does not require the admission of evidence if it is in a form that is otherwise objectionable.104 In other words, relevant | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence2010This Court has previously held, in Renteria v. State,102 that the United States Constitution does not require admission of mitigating evidence when it is inadmissible under state law, even when the evidence meets the test of “constitutional relevancy.” 103 Although Texas and the United States Supreme Court have established jurisprudence that no person shall be executed without the opportunity to bring all evidence of mitigating circumstances, the United States Constitution does not require the admission of evidence if it is in a form that is otherwise objectionable.104 In other words, relevant | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Loper v. Andrews green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Vasquez v. Meaders green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Mauritz v. Thatcher green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.