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 2016–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
London v. Stategreen2 sentences2026London held, “an appellant may generally challenge the imposition of even mandatory court costs for the first time on direct appeal when those costs are not imposed in open court and the judgment does not contain an itemization of the imposed court costs.” London, 490 S.W.3d at 507 (citing Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390–91) (emphasis added). 2025It invoked Johnson for the proposition that “an appellant may generally challenge the imposition of even mandatory court costs for the first time on direct appeal when those costs are not imposed in open court and the judgment does not contain an itemization of the imposed court costs.” London, 490 S.W.3d at 507 . | 1 | 5 |
Johnson, Manley Dewaynegreen2 sentences2026London held, “an appellant may generally challenge the imposition of even mandatory court costs for the first time on direct appeal when those costs are not imposed in open court and the judgment does not contain an itemization of the imposed court costs.” London, 490 S.W.3d at 507 (citing Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390–91) (emphasis added). 2023App. 2016) (“As we explained in Johnson, an appellant may generally challenge the imposition of even mandatory court costs for the first time on direct appeal when those costs are not imposed in open court and the judgment does not contain an itemization of the imposed court Briceno v. State Page 21 costs.”); Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 395-96 (“However, we note that, although a bill of costs is not required to sustain statutorily authorized and assessed court costs, it is the most expedient, and therefore, preferable method.”); Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 , 766- 67 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 4 |
Weir v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. 2011) (“Court costs, as reflected in a certified bill of costs, need neither be orally pronounced nor incorporated by reference in the judgment to be effective.” (citing Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napiergreen1 sentence2018See Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Armstrong v. State
green
1 sentence2023App. 2016) (“As we explained in Johnson, an appellant may generally challenge the imposition of even mandatory court costs for the first time on direct appeal when those costs are not imposed in open court and the judgment does not contain an itemization of the imposed court Briceno v. State Page 21 costs.”); Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 395-96 (“However, we note that, although a bill of costs is not required to sustain statutorily authorized and assessed court costs, it is the most expedient, and therefore, preferable method.”); Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 , 766- 67 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |