8 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robert Thomas, as Trustee of the Robert K. Thomas Trust v. 462 Thomas Family Properties, L.B.green1 sentence2022See Thomas v. 462 Thomas Family Props., LP, 559 S.W.3d 634, 639 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2012But punitive damages are generally available for common law torts so long as the traditional prerequisites are met: a finding of actual damages, Doubleday & Co. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 754 (Tex.1984); and outrageous, malicious, or otherwise reprehensible conduct, Transp. | 1 | 1 |
Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Albertsons Grocery Storesgreen1 sentence1999See Hartford Cas., 931 S.W.2d at 735 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ely v. Briley
green
2 sentences2002In Ely v. Briley , 959 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, no pet.), the court held that attorney's fees under the Texas version of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act are not appropriate in a suit that is in the nature of a trespass to try title. 2002In Ely v. Briley, 959 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.), the court held that attorney’s fees under the Texas version of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act are not appropriate in a suit that is in the nature of a trespass to try title. | 3 | 2002–2002 |
Sentell v. State
green
2 sentences1988As to evidence of the fact of the complaint only, it does no more than place a statutory imprimatur on a'traditional exception to the hearsay rule recognized in England and many of our states for nearly two centuries, and in Texas since at least 1884 — the rape victim’s outcry exception. 1 Sentell v. State, 34 Tex.Crim. 260 , 30 S.W. 226 (1895); Lawson v. State, 17 Tex.App. 292 (1884); 4 Wigmore on Evidence § 1135 (1940), and cases there cited. 1988As to evidence of the fact of the complaint only, it does no more than place a statutory imprimatur on a'traditional exception to the hearsay rule recognized in England and many of our states for nearly two centuries, and in Texas since at least 1884 — the rape victim’s outcry exception. 1 Sentell v. State, 34 Tex.Crim. 260 , 30 S.W. 226 (1895); Lawson v. State, 17 Tex.App. 292 (1884); 4 Wigmore on Evidence § 1135 (1940), and cases there cited. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences1988Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); California v. Green, supra. Article 38.072 is an expansion of such an exception. 1988Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); California v. Green, supra. Article 38.072 is an expansion of such an exception. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Fajeriak v. State
green
1 sentence1977The court explained that amnesia concerning the crime “does not render a defendant unable to comprehend his position or to consult intelligently with counsel in the preparation of his defense.” In Fajeriak v. State, 520 P.2d 795 (Alaska 1974), the Alaska Supreme Court held that the loss of memory did not render one incompetent and that: “Policy conjoins with precedent to oppose an expansion of the doctrine of incompetency to include amnesia. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Robert Wilson v. United States
green
2 sentences1977The potential for fraudulent allegations of memory loss is so great that we would for this reason alone be reluctant to follow amnesia as a ground for a finding of incompetency even if we were otherwise inclined to do so.” The leading case on the competency of an amnesiac defendant to stand trial is Wilson v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 107 , 391 F.2d 460 (1968). 1977The potential for fraudulent allegations of memory loss is so great that we would for this reason alone be reluctant to follow amnesia as a ground for a finding of incompetency even if we were otherwise inclined to do so.” The leading case on the competency of an amnesiac defendant to stand trial is Wilson v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 107 , 391 F.2d 460 (1968). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.