belated claim (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

belated claim in Texas

8 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1932–2012 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Corpus Christi People's Baptist Church, Inc. v. Nueces County Appraisal Districtgreen
tex · 1995 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See 904 S.W.2d at 624-25 .

2010See 904 S.W.2d at 624-25 .

33
Ex Parte Richardsongreen
texcrimapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012App. LEXIS 637, at 34-35 (April 25, 2012) (“Ordinarily a convicted person may not raise an issue in a habeas proceeding if the applicant could have raised that issue on direct appeal.”); Ex parte Richardson, 201 S.W.3d 712, 713 (Tex. Crim.

11
Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olveragreen
texcrimapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Instead, a belated claim of this sort is subject to the general habeas harm standard.22 But some confusion has arisen in our perjury/false-testimony jurisprudence because of the (...continued) which a record could not have been made, despite due diligence of the accused, in time to preserve the error for direct appeal”). 20 Ex parte Jimenez, 2012 Tex. Crim.

11
Boatner v. Providence-Washington Ins. Co.green
texcommnapp · 1922 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1932–1932
1 sentence

1932See Boatner v. Providence, etc., Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 241 S.W. 136, 140 , and authorities cited.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
GMC v. Saenz on Behalf of Saenz green
tex · 1994
1 sentence

1994In Dresser we held that a product manufacturer is entitled to offer evidence that plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by his employer's misconduct, and this rule applies regardless of plaintiff's education or working conditions. [1] Offering a belated defense to its unfortunate writing in Dresser , the majority says its determination to weaken product safety law there was not limited to the poorly educated but "applies regardless of plaintiff's education or working conditions." 873 S.W.2d at 361 n. 8.

11994–1994
Wilson v. State green
texcrimapp · 1984
2 sentences

1987In Wilson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. Cr.App.1984), this Court held that the State could challenge, for the first time on appeal, a defendant's standing to complain of an illegal search or seizure.

1987In Wilson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), this Court held that the State could challenge, for the first time on appeal, a defendant’s standing to complain of an illegal search or seizure.

11987–1987
Jackson v. State green
texcrimapp · 1958
2 sentences

1985Specifically he contends that “the action of the trial court in denying a hearing on the motion [for new trial] ... amounts to a constraint or curtailment of the Appellant’s absolute right to a full, free and fair presentation of the evidence in support of the motion which was clearly prohibited in [Jackson v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 34 , 318 S.W.2d 98 (1958) ].” 1 On this basis he contends he should be granted, not merely a belated hearing on his motion for new trial, but the new trial itself.

1985Specifically he contends that “the action of the trial court in denying a hearing on the motion [for new trial] ... amounts to a constraint or curtailment of the Appellant’s absolute right to a full, free and fair presentation of the evidence in support of the motion which was clearly prohibited in [Jackson v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 34 , 318 S.W.2d 98 (1958) ].” 1 On this basis he contends he should be granted, not merely a belated hearing on his motion for new trial, but the new trial itself.

11985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Tax Code § 151.0101 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 38 (1928–2025) CA 36 (1927–2025) TN 17 (1982–2021) FL 14 (1969–2023) NJ 11 (1971–2022) OR 10 (1958–2026) PA 8 (1930–2024) TX 8 (1932–2012) ME 7 (1960–2021) NE 7 (1953–2000) MD 6 (1960–2022) IN 6 (1968–2018) OH 6 (1957–2017) WA 6 (1984–2021) IL 6 (1920–2024) DC 5 (1987–2023) NV 4 (1980–1996) LA 4 (1964–2022) MS 4 (1977–2015) CO 3 (1992–2004) MO 3 (1972–2005) OK 3 (1970–1993) MT 3 (1985–1997) SC 3 (1993–2013) KS 3 (1905–2000) GA 3 (2007–2022) AZ 3 (2016–2025) IA 3 (1939–2011) VT 3 (2007–2007) CT 2 (1999–2000) RI 2 (1990–2019) MI 2 (1975–1992) MA 2 (1997–2024) NC 2 (1995–2014) MN 2 (1956–1987) UT 2 (2020–2021) WI 2 (2004–2009) NM 2 (1994–1994) SD 2 (2019–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check