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.
8 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hankins v. Stategreen2 sentences1991In Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), this Court abolished the requirement that a trial court provide the jury with an instruction concerning the weight to be given circumstantial evidence. 3 We reasoned that such an instruction rested on the untenable proposition that circumstantial evidence was less trustworthy than direct evidence. 646 S.W.2d at 197 (opinion on rehearing). 1991In Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), this Court abolished the requirement that a trial court provide the jury with an instruction concerning the weight to be given circumstantial evidence. 3 We reasoned that such an instruction rested on the untenable proposition that circumstantial evidence was less trustworthy than direct evidence. 646 S.W.2d at 197 (opinion on rehearing). | 2 | 4 |
Thomas Fashauer, Jr. v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Incgreen1 sentence2012See Fashauer v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 57 F.3d 1269, 1279 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating that when the employee is given a specific order—that is, where he or she is told to perform a specific task in a particular way "he is not contributorily negligent; rather his conduct falls under the abolished doctrine of assumption of risk."). | 1 | 1 |
Bounds v. Caudlegreen2 sentences1986Id. at 927. 1986Id. at 927. | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Stategreen2 sentences1986I also believe that Judge Roberts, a former member of this Court, if he were still on the Court, would repeat today what he stated in the dissenting opinion that he filed in Butler v. State, 493 S.W.2d 190, 198 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), to which saying I subscribe: “I am not a slave to stare deci-sis as to adhere to holdings that are not reasonable or rational, simply because they are old ... 1986I also believe that Judge Roberts, a former member of this Court, if he were still on the Court, would repeat today what he stated in the dissenting opinion that he filed in Butler v. State, 493 S.W.2d 190, 198 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), to which saying I subscribe: "I am not a slave to stare decisis as to adhere to holdings that are not reasonable or rational, simply because they are old ... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
red
2 sentences1994Id. at 421 . 1984In Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Company, 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.1984), this court abolished that defense in products cases' as it had earlier done in negligence cases. | 2 | 1984–1994 |
Faulder v. State
green
1 sentence1986See Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (abolition of the necessity to ever charge on the law of circumstantial evidence); Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (opinion on State’s motion for rehearing) (abolition of the carving doctrine); Faulder v. Hill, 612 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (authorizing the right of the State to appeal in certain circumstances despite constitutional and statutory prohibitions).” In Hypolite, supra, a majority of this Court abolished the rule of law that a motion to dismiss the appeal had to be notarized. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hypolite v. State
green
2 sentences1986See Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (abolition of the necessity to ever charge on the law of circumstantial evidence); Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (opinion on State’s motion for rehearing) (abolition of the carving doctrine); Faulder v. Hill, 612 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (authorizing the right of the State to appeal in certain circumstances despite constitutional and statutory prohibitions).” In Hypolite, supra, a majority of this Court abolished the rule of law that a motion to dismiss the appeal had to be notarized. 1986App.1981) (authorizing the right of the State to appeal in certain circumstances despite constitutional and statutory prohibitions)." In Hypolite, supra, a majority of this Court abolished the rule of law that a motion to dismiss the appeal had to be notarized. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ex Parte McWilliams
green
1 sentence1986See Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (abolition of the necessity to ever charge on the law of circumstantial evidence); Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (opinion on State’s motion for rehearing) (abolition of the carving doctrine); Faulder v. Hill, 612 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (authorizing the right of the State to appeal in certain circumstances despite constitutional and statutory prohibitions).” In Hypolite, supra, a majority of this Court abolished the rule of law that a motion to dismiss the appeal had to be notarized. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Farley v. MM Cattle Company
green
1 sentence1984Farley v. M M Cattle Co., 529 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.1975). | 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.