8 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1998–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Sullivan v. State, 248 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (noting that numerous Texas courts agree that medical reports are non-testimonial); see also Garza v. State, No. 13-19-00472-CR, 2021 WL 822301 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Mar. 4, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 16 publication) (determining that defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated by admission of medical records created for medical purpose).2 The Medical Records Fell Under Exception to Hearsay On appeal, Estrada argues that the medical records were also not admiss | 1 | 1 |
Munoz v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Cf. Munoz, 288 S.W.3d at 60 (determining in sexual-abuse case that identity of perpetrator as victim’s father “was of critical importance in preventing further harm or abuse”). | 1 | 1 |
Coffey v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See id. | 1 | 1 |
Dominique Dontae Lasker v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Lasker v. State, 577 S.W.3d 583, 589 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]), pet. ref’d, 586 S.W.3d 408 (2019). 9 III. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garrettgreen2 sentences2021App. 1985) (including person’s “odor of alcohol on the breath” in list of “evidence of intoxication”); 6 • McMurray’s nonresponsive “Good question” in reply to Officer Estrada’s inquiry about how much McMurray had to drink that night, see State v. Garrett, 22 S.W.3d 650, 654-55 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (including defendant’s nonresponsive reply to officer’s question about how much defendant had to drink that night as factor to be considered in determining whether there was probable cause for DWI arrest); see also Jones v. State, No. 09-15-00308-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6103 , at *4 (Te 2021App. 1985) (including person’s “odor of alcohol on the breath” in list of “evidence of intoxication”); 6 • McMurray’s nonresponsive “Good question” in reply to Officer Estrada’s inquiry about how much McMurray had to drink that night, see State v. Garrett, 22 S.W.3d 650, 654-55 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (including defendant’s nonresponsive reply to officer’s question about how much defendant had to drink that night as factor to be considered in determining whether there was probable cause for DWI arrest); see also Jones v. State, No. 09-15-00308-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6103 , at *4 (Te | 1 | 1 |
Bartlett v. Stategreen1 sentence2021App. 1985) (including person’s “odor of alcohol on the breath” in list of “evidence of intoxication”); 6 • McMurray’s nonresponsive “Good question” in reply to Officer Estrada’s inquiry about how much McMurray had to drink that night, see State v. Garrett, 22 S.W.3d 650, 654-55 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (including defendant’s nonresponsive reply to officer’s question about how much defendant had to drink that night as factor to be considered in determining whether there was probable cause for DWI arrest); see also Jones v. State, No. 09-15-00308-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6103 , at *4 (Te | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilfeathergreen1 sentence2021App. 1985) (including person’s “odor of alcohol on the breath” in list of “evidence of intoxication”); 6 • McMurray’s nonresponsive “Good question” in reply to Officer Estrada’s inquiry about how much McMurray had to drink that night, see State v. Garrett, 22 S.W.3d 650, 654-55 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (including defendant’s nonresponsive reply to officer’s question about how much defendant had to drink that night as factor to be considered in determining whether there was probable cause for DWI arrest); see also Jones v. State, No. 09-15-00308-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6103 , at *4 (Te | 1 | 1 |
Dansby v. Stategreen1 sentence2021App. 1985) (including person’s “odor of alcohol on the breath” in list of “evidence of intoxication”); 6 • McMurray’s nonresponsive “Good question” in reply to Officer Estrada’s inquiry about how much McMurray had to drink that night, see State v. Garrett, 22 S.W.3d 650, 654-55 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (including defendant’s nonresponsive reply to officer’s question about how much defendant had to drink that night as factor to be considered in determining whether there was probable cause for DWI arrest); see also Jones v. State, No. 09-15-00308-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6103 , at *4 (Te | 1 | 1 |
Carmouche v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2014The trial judge denied Estrada’s motion, finding that Estrada had not been in “custody” for Miranda 1 Estrada v. State, No. 04-12-00136-CR, 2012 WL 6720655 , at *8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Dec. 28, 2012). 2 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2012The trial court denied Estrada’s motion to suppress, concluding the statement was not the product of custodial interrogation because Estrada was merely detained, not arrested, prior to her statement. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). -2- 04-12-00136-CR STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard. | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Trevino v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences1998Such allegations do not satisfy Estrada’s burden of overcoming the presumption of proper notice. 2 Trevino, 749 S.W.2d at 223 . 1998Such allegations do not satisfy Estrada's burden of overcoming the presumption of proper notice. (2) Trevino , 749 S.W.2d at 223 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
State of Texas v. Ortiz, Octavio
green
1 sentence2014STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 Id. at *2. 4 Id. 5 Id. at *4–6. 6 Id. at *8. 7 State v. Ortiz, 382 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care System
green
2 sentences2005The court of appeals in this case held that, even if the Estrada exception applied, the trial court did not grant Wilkins all the relief she sought because her request to dismiss the System’s summary-judgment motion and continue the suit against the Hospital was denied. 108 S.W.3d at 568 . 2005The court of appeals in this case held that, even if the Estrada exception applied, the trial court did not grant Wilkins all the relief she sought because her request to dismiss the System’s summary-judgment motion and continue the suit against the Hospital was denied. 108 S.W.3d at 568 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.