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 2 courts 1909–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cantu v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. 1997) (expert appointed pursuant to Ake is an agent of the defense for work-product doctrine but trial court’s error in requiring defendant to disclose a document prepared by the expert was harmless); Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627, 638-39 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Matchett v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. 1997) (Ake is applicable to non-psychiatric experts but Applicant did not show a particularized need for the funding sought for an expert to conduct a jury study regarding their understanding of the special punishment issues); Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922, 939 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rourke v. Garzared1 sentence2006Ames v. Great Southern Bank, 672 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex.1984); Rourke v. Garza, 530 S.W.2d 794, 802 (Tex.1975); Hall v. F.A. | 1 | 1 |
Ames v. Great Southern Bankgreen1 sentence2006Ames v. Great Southern Bank, 672 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex.1984); Rourke v. Garza, 530 S.W.2d 794, 802 (Tex.1975); Hall v. F.A. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Firstmerit Bank, N.A.
green
2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (2001) 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 recover for condition of the home and sellers' [15] Alternative Dispute Resolution failure to remedy defects. 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (2001) 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 900 recover for condition of the home and sellers' [15] Alternative Dispute Resolution failure to remedy defects. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence1997Taylor v. State, 939 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1997An expert appointed pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1096 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), is an agent of defense counsel for purposes of the work product doctrine. 1997An expert appointed pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1096 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), is an agent of defense counsel for purposes of the work product doctrine. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Norman v. State
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 345 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Humphries v. Wiley
green
1 sentence1949Arguing inadmissibility of Exhibit 1 (quitclaim), appellants cite Humphries v. Wiley, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 793 , where authority of trustees of an unincorporated church to convey realty without knowledge or consent of the congregation was successfully challenged. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1948In 8 Corpus Juris Secundum, Bailments, Sec. 1, p. 225, it is said: “While bailment has been distinguished from agency, a bailee has been said to be a species of agent.” Again, in Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co., 38 S. W. (2d) 417 , it is said: “A bailee may act for the benefit of the bailor, but that fact does not make him an agent.” See 2 Corpus Jur. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
McCutcheon v. People
green
1 sentence1909“In McCutcheon v. People, 69 Ill., 601 , the court said it was immaterial whether the sale was made by the respondent or an agent, and that if made by an agent the presumption is conclusive that he acted within the.scope of his authority. ‘When the agent . . . is set to do the very thing which, and which only the principal’s business contemplates, namely, the dispensing of liquors to purchasers, the principal must be chargeable with the agent’s violation of legal restrictions on that business. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.