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 1979–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carranza v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 79 ; Burrus, 266 S.W.3d at 115 . 2012See Carranza , 960 S.W.2d at 79 ; Burrus , 266 S.W.3d at 115 . | 4 | 4 |
Burrus v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The motion for new trial did include a proposed order to set the motion for a hearing, but that order was not completed, nor does the docket sheet reflect that a hearing was set or held on the motion.4 See Burrus, 266 S.W.3d at 115 (holding no presentment when the record showed no ruling on the motion, no proposed order containing the judge’s signature or notation, and no notation on the docket sheet of a hearing date set on the motion); Hernandez v. State, 84 S.W.3d 26 , 31–32 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (holding no presentment when docket sheet showed only the filing of the motio 2012See Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 79 ; Burrus, 266 S.W.3d at 115 . | 1 | 6 |
Whitehead v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Michael Kenneth Lawrence v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The motion for new trial did include a proposed order to set the motion for a hearing, but that order was not completed, nor does the docket sheet reflect that a hearing was set or held on the motion.4 See Burrus, 266 S.W.3d at 115 (holding no presentment when the record showed no ruling on the motion, no proposed order containing the judge’s signature or notation, and no notation on the docket sheet of a hearing date set on the motion); Hernandez v. State, 84 S.W.3d 26 , 31–32 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (holding no presentment when docket sheet showed only the filing of the motio | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The motion for new trial did include a proposed order to set the motion for a hearing, but that order was not completed, nor does the docket sheet reflect that a hearing was set or held on the motion.4 See Burrus, 266 S.W.3d at 115 (holding no presentment when the record showed no ruling on the motion, no proposed order containing the judge’s signature or notation, and no notation on the docket sheet of a hearing date set on the motion); Hernandez v. State, 84 S.W.3d 26 , 31–32 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (holding no presentment when docket sheet showed only the filing of the motio | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Simpson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). 14 Here, although Burrus timely filed her motion for new trial, there is no ruling on the motion, no proposed order containing the judge’s signature or notation, and no notation on the docket sheet of a hearing date set on the motion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. State
green
1 sentence2015The motion for new trial did include a proposed order to set the motion for a hearing, but that order was not completed, nor does the docket sheet reflect that a hearing was set or held on the motion.4 See Burrus, 266 S.W.3d at 115 (holding no presentment when the record showed no ruling on the motion, no proposed order containing the judge’s signature or notation, and no notation on the docket sheet of a hearing date set on the motion); Hernandez v. State, 84 S.W.3d 26 , 31–32 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (holding no presentment when docket sheet showed only the filing of the motio | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Allison v. State
neutral
2 sentences1979Allison v. State, 479 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). 1979Allison v. State, 479 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1979–1979 |