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 1988–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Human Services v. Whitegreen2 sentences2019However, to obtain reversal on the basis of trial error, a party must establish that the error was “harmful.” Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. White, 817 S.W.2d 62 , 63 14 (Tex. 1991). 2008App. P. 44.1(a); Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. White , 817 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Tex. 1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone , 916 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996), aff’d , 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998). | 3 | 4 |
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malonegreen2 sentences2008App. P. 44.1(a); Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. White , 817 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Tex. 1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone , 916 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996), aff’d , 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998). 2002P. 44.1(a); Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. White, 817 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Tex.1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 916 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996), aff'd, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.1998). | 3 | 3 |
Davison, Anthony Raygreen1 sentence2015See Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682, 691 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) ("Ordinarily, we would remand a cause to the lower appellate court when our rejection of its basis for disposition gives rise to another 'issue [that was] raised and [now becomes] necessary to final disposition of the appeal[,] but which the court of appeals has not already addressed.”) (brackets in original); Benavidez, 323 S.W.3d at 182 n.19 ("When an appellate court reverses a conviction on the basis of trial error without reaching other points of error in an appeal, it has decided every issue 'necessary to final disposition of t | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Queengreen1 sentence1997Because the new trial motion was granted solely on the basis of trial error, as opposed to a finding of insufficient enhancement evidence, double jeopardy does not bar either a retrial or “re-enhancement.” Ex parte Queen, 877 S.W.2d 752, 754-55 (Tex.Cr.App.1994); Franklin v. State, 693 S.W.2d 420, 432 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Franklin v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Because the new trial motion was granted solely on the basis of trial error, as opposed to a finding of insufficient enhancement evidence, double jeopardy does not bar either a retrial or “re-enhancement.” Ex parte Queen, 877 S.W.2d 752, 754-55 (Tex.Cr.App.1994); Franklin v. State, 693 S.W.2d 420, 432 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone
green
2 sentences2008App. P. 44.1(a); Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. White , 817 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Tex. 1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone , 916 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996), aff’d , 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998). 2002P. 44.1(a); Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. White, 817 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Tex.1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 916 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996), aff'd, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.1998). | 3 | 2002–2008 |
Benavidez v. State
green
2 sentences2015App. 2013) (“Ordinarily, we would remand a cause to the lower appellate court when our rejection of its basis for disposition gives rise to another ‘issue [that was] raised and [now becomes] necessary to final disposition of the appeal[,] but which the court of appeals has not already addressed.”) (brackets in original); Benavidez, 323 S.W.3d at 182 n.19 (“When an appellate court reverses a conviction on the basis of trial error without reaching other points of error in an appeal, it has decided every issue ‘necessary to final disposition of the appeal’ for purposes of TEX . 2015See Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682, 691 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) ("Ordinarily, we would remand a cause to the lower appellate court when our rejection of its basis for disposition gives rise to another 'issue [that was] raised and [now becomes] necessary to final disposition of the appeal[,] but which the court of appeals has not already addressed.”) (brackets in original); Benavidez, 323 S.W.3d at 182 n.19 ("When an appellate court reverses a conviction on the basis of trial error without reaching other points of error in an appeal, it has decided every issue 'necessary to final disposition of t | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Price v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1988Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 , 90 S.Ct. 1757 , 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970). 1988Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 , 90 S.Ct. 1757 , 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.