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.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cannon v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Compare Cannon, 252 S.W.3d at 349-50 (holding defense counsel’s behavior as a whole — doing nothing because he was unprepared to go forward — constituted ineffective assistance of counsel), with Moore v. State, 227 S.W.3d 421, 422, 427 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref'd) (holding defense counsel’s behavior in allegedly falling asleep during prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel). 2009Compare Cannon , 252 S.W.3d at 349–50 (holding defense counsel’s behavior as a whole—doing nothing because he was unprepared to go forward—constituted ineffective assistance of counsel), with Moore v. State , 227 S.W.3d 421, 422, 427 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (holding defense counsel’s behavior in allegedly falling asleep during prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel). | 4 | 4 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Compare Cannon, 252 S.W.3d at 349-50 (holding defense counsel’s behavior as a whole — doing nothing because he was unprepared to go forward — constituted ineffective assistance of counsel), with Moore v. State, 227 S.W.3d 421, 422, 427 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref'd) (holding defense counsel’s behavior in allegedly falling asleep during prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel). 2009Compare Cannon , 252 S.W.3d at 349–50 (holding defense counsel’s behavior as a whole—doing nothing because he was unprepared to go forward—constituted ineffective assistance of counsel), with Moore v. State , 227 S.W.3d 421, 422, 427 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (holding defense counsel’s behavior in allegedly falling asleep during prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel). | 4 | 4 |
Aldrich v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., Aldrich v. State, 296 S.W.3d 225, 250 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d) (“Although the record supports the conclusions that defense counsel was hard of hearing, that defense 8 counsel’s speech was difficult to hear, and that defense counsel became confused at points during the trial, these facts in and of themselves do not constitute deficient performance.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, Inc. v. Palacios
green
2 sentences2012Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878-79 . 2012Palacios , 46 S.W.3d at 878-79 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Harmon
green
1 sentence1948It is thought that the holding in Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Harmon, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 854 , writ refused, and the authorities therein discussed, would be controlling. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Ingersoll v. Gourley
green
2 sentences1928Among these cases is that of Ingersoll v. Gourley, wherein the Supreme Gourt of the state of Washington holds that the test of the survivorship of a cause of action is its assignability, and, conversely, the test of as-signability is survivorship, and, further, that “any person interested in any will who may contest its validity within a given time” means any person who but for the will would have an interest in the estate. 72 Wash. 462 , 130 P. 743 . 1928Among these cases is that of Ingersoll v. Gourley, wherein the Supreme Gourt of the state of Washington holds that the test of the survivorship of a cause of action is its assignability, and, conversely, the test of as-signability is survivorship, and, further, that “any person interested in any will who may contest its validity within a given time” means any person who but for the will would have an interest in the estate. 72 Wash. 462 , 130 P. 743 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.
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.