61 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1962–2025 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wiley v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“In other words, the erroneous ruling” implicates the Constitution if it “goes to the heart of the defense.” Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399, 405 (Tex. Crim. 2023Ultimately, Rogers - 12 this case is a prime example of the ways in which a trial court’s evidentiary rulings can undermine “the heart of the defense.” See Wiley, 74 S.W.3d at 405 . | 15 | 22 |
Ray v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Thus, “[w]hile excluding testimony that would ‘incrementally’ further the defendant’s defensive theory is not constitutional error, excluding evidence that ‘goes to the heart of the defense’ is.” Wilson, 451 S.W.3d at 886 (quoting Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. Crim. 2014See Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (holding erroneously excluding testimony that incrementally furthers defense is non-constitutional error); Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 899, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (holding erroneously excluding testimony that “goes to the heart of the defense” is constitutional error). | 5 | 5 |
Potier v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Appellant maintains that the excluded evidence “went to the heart of the defense.” See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (quoting DePetris v. Kuykendall, 239 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2001)). 2015Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 665 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); see also Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (erroneous exclusion of evidence is a constitutional violation if it “effectively prevents the defendant from presenting his defensive theory,” or in other words, if the ruling “goes to the heart of the defense”). | 2 | 7 |
Davis v. Alaskagreen2 sentences2015Petitioner’s sole defense was that she killed her husband in an honest belief that she 20 See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 320 , 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1112 (1974). 17 needed to do so to save her life. 2015Petitioner’s sole defense was that she killed her husband in an honest belief that she 20 See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 320 , 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1112 (1974). 17 needed to do so to save her life. | 2 | 3 |
Walker v. Packergreen2 sentences2025Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843-844 (emphasis added). 2015Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976)…..….…..7 Remington Arms Co. v. Canales, 837 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.1992)……….……5, 6 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992)……………………….....10, 17 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 34 CFR 99.31(a)(9)(ii)(A)-(B)…………………………………………...…….…..7 Tex. Govt. | 2 | 2 |
BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchandgreen2 sentences2020See PHC–Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 175 (citing BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 799 ); Hargrave, 710 F.2d at 1160. 2019See PHC–Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 175 (citing BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 799 ); Hargrave, 710 F.2d at 1160. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Menchacagreen2 sentences2025Id. at 133 . 2014Id. | 1 | 3 |
Gary Wayne Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Holguin v. State, No. 11-20-00143-CR, 2022 WL 1040935 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Eastland, Apr. 7, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Wilson v. State, 451 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d)); see Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. Crim. 2022Thus, “[w]hile excluding testimony that would ‘incrementally’ further the defendant’s defensive theory is not constitutional error, excluding evidence that ‘goes to the heart of the defense’ is.” Wilson, 451 S.W.3d at 886 (quoting Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
Wiley v. Texasgreen2 sentences2018In other words, the erroneous ruling goes to the heart of the defense.” Id. (footnote omitted). 12 Discussion Crosby does not argue that any evidentiary rule categorically and arbitrarily prohibited him from offering relevant evidence, so we focus only on the second category: Crosby’s argument that the trial court’s erroneous ruling excluded otherwise relevant, reliable evidence that formed a vital portion of his case and effectively precluded him from presenting a defense. 2018See id. | 1 | 2 |
Kelly A. Depetris v. Lew Kuykendall James Gomezgreen2 sentences2016Appellant maintains that the excluded evidence “went to the heart of the defense.” See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (quoting DePetris v. Kuykendall, 239 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2001)). 2003Id. | 1 | 2 |
DeFunis v. Odegaardgreen1 sentence2025Appellant points to DeFunis v. Odegaard, wherein Defunis challenged an admissions policy that had allegedly denied him admission based on race. 416 U.S. 312, 315 (1974) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Masonite Corp.green1 sentence2025In re Masonite Corp., 997 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Nestle USA, Inc.green1 sentence2020The heart of that privilege is the “opportunity to realize gross income.” Id. at 622 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Anthony Ray Jefferson and Roosevelt Jefferson, Jr.green1 sentence2017App. 2002); Potier, 68 S.W.3d at 663 (“At a minimum, a defendant must demonstrate that the excluded evidence was important to his defense.”) (citing United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d 1242, 1254 (10th Cir.) (“A violation of the hearsay rule does not automatically equate to a constitutional violation of the Sixth Amendment”). | 1 | 1 |
Andras v. Memorial Hospital Systemgreen1 sentence2016Sys., 888 S.W.2d 567, 572 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (holding that sanction of dismissal was not too severe where sanctioned parties violated three orders, informed trial court they would not produced requested documents that “went to the heart of the claim and the defense,” and refused to do so). | 1 | 1 |
Butan Valley, N v. v. Smithgreen1 sentence2016The facts before us lead us to conclude that lesser sanctions would have provided a punishment more fitting the offense that would have likely 14 promoted compliance.5 See TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917 ; Butan Valley N.V. v. Smith, 921 S.W.2d 822, 831 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (holding that record did not support trial court’s statement that lesser sanctions would not have been more appropriate or promoted compliance). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dana Corp.green1 sentence2015Relator has no adequate remedy on appeal as the case would proceed to trial without allowing Relator a sufficient opportunity for discovery of evidence which goes to the heart of her claim……………………..…………….........................................9 iv CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...17 PRAYER.............................................................................................................…18 CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.green1 sentence2015Relator has no adequate remedy on appeal as the case would proceed to trial without allowing Relator a sufficient opportunity for discovery of evidence which goes to the heart of her claim……………………..…………….........................................9 iv CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...17 PRAYER.............................................................................................................…18 CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................. | 1 | 1 |
| Independent Insulating Glass/Southwest, Inc. v. Streetgreen | 1 | 1 |
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen1 sentence2015Relator has no adequate remedy on appeal as the case would proceed to trial without allowing Relator a sufficient opportunity for discovery of evidence which goes to the heart of her claim……………………..…………….........................................9 iv CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...17 PRAYER.............................................................................................................…18 CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................. | 1 | 1 |
Alvarado v. Farah Manufacturing Co.green1 sentence2015Relator has no adequate remedy on appeal as the case would proceed to trial without allowing Relator a sufficient opportunity for discovery of evidence which goes to the heart of her claim……………………..…………….........................................9 iv CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...17 PRAYER.............................................................................................................…18 CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................. | 1 | 1 |
Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Canalesgreen1 sentence2015Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976)…..….…..7 Remington Arms Co. v. Canales, 837 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.1992)……….……5, 6 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992)……………………….....10, 17 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 34 CFR 99.31(a)(9)(ii)(A)-(B)…………………………………………...…….…..7 Tex. Govt. | 1 | 1 |
Koehler v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 (1974); Koehler v. State, 679 S.W.2d 6, 9 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Dietz v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cuadros-Fernandez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kelly v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jakobleff v. Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chicago Title Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. DiFedegreen | 1 | 1 |
| League v. Vanicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hardiman v. State
green
2 sentences2005“The heart of the inquiry is whether the declarants had the time for reflection and deliberation.” Id. 2005“The heart of the inquiry is whether the declarants had the time for reflection and deliberation.” Id. | 5 | 2004–2005 |
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 304 . 2022Id. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman
green
1 sentence2025But fraud is an affirmative defense that must be specifically 4 In his thirty-third issue, Anderson asserts that “[t]he trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent nature of the underlying contract.” But the only case he cites for this proposition, King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003), is inapposite. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell
green
1 sentence2016The facts before us lead us to conclude that lesser sanctions would have provided a punishment more fitting the offense that would have likely 14 promoted compliance.5 See TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917 ; Butan Valley N.V. v. Smith, 921 S.W.2d 822, 831 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (holding that record did not support trial court’s statement that lesser sanctions would not have been more appropriate or promoted compliance). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Texas Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence2015Relator has no adequate remedy on appeal as the case would proceed to trial without allowing Relator a sufficient opportunity for discovery of evidence which goes to the heart of her claim……………………..…………….........................................9 iv CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...17 PRAYER.............................................................................................................…18 CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976)…..….…..7 Remington Arms Co. v. Canales, 837 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.1992)……….……5, 6 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992)……………………….....10, 17 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 34 CFR 99.31(a)(9)(ii)(A)-(B)…………………………………………...…….…..7 Tex. Govt. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Leos v. State Employees Workers' Compensation Division
green
1 sentence2015Relator has no adequate remedy on appeal as the case would proceed to trial without allowing Relator a sufficient opportunity for discovery of evidence which goes to the heart of her claim……………………..…………….........................................9 iv CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...17 PRAYER.............................................................................................................…18 CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jampole v. Touchy
green
1 sentence2015Relator has no adequate remedy on appeal as the case would proceed to trial without allowing Relator a sufficient opportunity for discovery of evidence which goes to the heart of her claim……………………..…………….........................................9 iv CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………...17 PRAYER.............................................................................................................…18 CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hammer v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Stephenson v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Lal v. Borough of Kennett Square green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| O'NEAL v. McAninch green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| United States v. Lane green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Rico v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Brumley v. State green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.