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 1 courts 1999–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clewis v. Statered2 sentences1999See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 135 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). 1999Clewis v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Mechlergreen1 sentence2023According to appellant, the timing of the court’s ruling “belies any presumption that the court conscientiously balanced the value of the proffered testimony against the danger it posed.” “A proper Rule 403 analysis includes, but is not limited to, four factors: (1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the potential to impress the jury in some irrational and indelible way; (3) the time needed to develop the evidence; and (4) the proponent’s need for the evidence.” State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2000"Such a blanket exclusion of statements made by the deceased spouse encourages automatic exclusion of this evidence without analysis of whether the statements may nevertheless be admissible pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule." Williams v. State, 927 S.W.2d 752, 760 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1996, pet. ref'd). 2000“Such a blanket exclusion of statements made by the deceased spouse encourages automatic exclusion of this evidence without analysis of whether the statements may nevertheless be admissible pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule.” Williams v. State, 927 S.W.2d 752, 760 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. State
green
1 sentence2014He contends that the trial judge should not have admitted the evidence without a hearing to test Mustafa’s qualifications as an expert under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), and Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014He contends that the trial judge should not have admitted the evidence without a hearing to test Mustafa’s qualifications as an expert under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), and Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. 2014He contends that the trial judge should not have admitted the evidence without a hearing to test Mustafa’s qualifications as an expert under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), and Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Light v. State
green
1 sentence2005Id. 7 Request to Clerk for Preparation of Clerk’s Record on Appeal, filed September 9, 2004; and (6) the Reporter’s Record from April 26. | 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.