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 4 courts 1992–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
in Re: Pauline Chesses and Sun Chesses-Szabosgreen1 sentence2013In re Chesses, 388 S.W.3d 330, 340 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 2012, orig. proceeding) (addressing claim for disclosure under TEX. 9 HUM. | 1 | 1 |
Consolidation Coal Company v. Local 1643, United Mine Workers Of Americagreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1643, 48 F.3d 125 (4th Cir.1995); Hobet Mining, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 877 F.Supp. 1011 (S.D.W.Va.1994). 1997See, e.g., Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1643, 48 F.3d 125 (4th Cir.1995); Hobet Mining, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 877 F.Supp. 1011 (S.D.W.Va.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Shearer's, Inc.green1 sentence1996See also Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Shearer’s, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ) (“[T]he Texas legislature not only used language tracking that of the federal statute ... but it also included a clause [section 15.04] specifying uniformity of construction between the federal and Texas statutes.”); Nafrawi v. Hendrick Medical Ctr., 676 F.Supp. 770, 774 (N.D.Tex.1987) (“Establishing a violation of the [Texas Antitrust Act], then, requires the same elements as are required to establish the comparable violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 .”). | 1 | 1 |
Nafrawi v. Hendrick Medical Centergreen1 sentence1996See also Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Shearer’s, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ) (“[T]he Texas legislature not only used language tracking that of the federal statute ... but it also included a clause [section 15.04] specifying uniformity of construction between the federal and Texas statutes.”); Nafrawi v. Hendrick Medical Ctr., 676 F.Supp. 770, 774 (N.D.Tex.1987) (“Establishing a violation of the [Texas Antitrust Act], then, requires the same elements as are required to establish the comparable violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 .”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ferrer v. State
green
1 sentence2021“The reasonableness of the State’s notice generally turns on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Ferrer, 548 S.W.3d at 120 ; see also Rea v. State, No. 03-11-00186-CR, 2012 WL 3601126 , at *2 (Tex. App.— 4 Article 37.07(3)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a comparable rule relating to evidence of extraneous conduct introduced during the punishment phase of trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter Ex Rel. Carter
green
1 sentence2011Motors Corp. , 509 F.3d 227 , 231 B 32 (5th Cir. 2007); BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter , 251 S.W.3d 500 , 506 B 07 (Tex. 2008). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Carden v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence2011Motors Corp. , 509 F.3d 227 , 231 B 32 (5th Cir. 2007); BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter , 251 S.W.3d 500 , 506 B 07 (Tex. 2008). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hobet Mining, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers
green
2 sentences1997See, e.g., Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1643, 48 F.3d 125 (4th Cir.1995); Hobet Mining, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 877 F.Supp. 1011 (S.D.W.Va.1994). 1997See, e.g., Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1643, 48 F.3d 125 (4th Cir.1995); Hobet Mining, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 877 F.Supp. 1011 (S.D.W.Va.1994). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Castillo v. State
green
1 sentence1997Castillo v. State, 818 S.W.2d 803 , 805 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Morales v. Ellen
green
1 sentence1993However, the Ellen court applied the common-law privacy exception to public disclosure under section 3(a)(1) of the Texas Open Records Act, id. at 524 ; a comparable exception is not found in the Open Meetings Act. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Best
green
2 sentences1992State v. Best, 146 Ariz. 1 , 703 P.2d 548 (Ct.App.1985); State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613 (Alaska App.1982). [8] The subject reports reflect the results of tests run to determine the presence of blood, seminal fluid, spermatozoa, and foreign hair and to determine blood type. 1992State v. Best, 146 Ariz. 1 , 703 P.2d 548 (Ct.App.1985); State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613 (Alaska App.1982). [8] The subject reports reflect the results of tests run to determine the presence of blood, seminal fluid, spermatozoa, and foreign hair and to determine blood type. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Huggins
green
2 sentences1992State v. Best, 146 Ariz. 1 , 703 P.2d 548 (Ct.App.1985); State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613 (Alaska App.1982). .The subject reports reflect the results of tests run to determine the presence of blood, seminal fluid, spermatozoa, and foreign hair and to determine blood type. 1992State v. Best, 146 Ariz. 1 , 703 P.2d 548 (Ct.App.1985); State v. Huggins, 659 P.2d 613 (Alaska App.1982). [8] The subject reports reflect the results of tests run to determine the presence of blood, seminal fluid, spermatozoa, and foreign hair and to determine blood type. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.