8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Irlbeck v. John Deere Co.green1 sentence2025See Irlbeck v. John Deere Co., 714 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Richardsongreen1 sentence2021Instead, the judge decided whether to grant the application by relying on the pleadings, the evidence the parties produced to support and oppose the application, and the habeas court’s recollection of the proceedings in 2012. 12 In our review of a habeas judge’s ruling on a writ filed under Article 11.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we apply an abuse-of-discretion to resolve the issues raised in the appeal. 13 This means we afford “almost total deference to a habeas court’s factual findings when they are supported by the record, especially when those findings are based on credibility an | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte Walkergreen1 sentence2018See Ex parte Walker, 489 S.W.3d 1, 14 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016, pet. ref’d), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1813 (2017) (affirming the trial court’s orders denying Walker a formal evidentiary hearing and habeas relief on double jeopardy grounds, and concluding that no exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine applied). | 1 | 1 |
General Motors LLC v. Elliottgreen1 sentence2018See Ex parte Walker, 489 S.W.3d 1, 14 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016, pet. ref’d), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1813 (2017) (affirming the trial court’s orders denying Walker a formal evidentiary hearing and habeas relief on double jeopardy grounds, and concluding that no exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine applied). | 1 | 1 |
In Re International Profit Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2014See In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (“[D]elaying the filing of a petition for mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the delay.”). | 1 | 1 |
Holloway v. Arkansasgreen1 sentence2011See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978); Lerma v. State, 679 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Lerma v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978); Lerma v. State, 679 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cameron County Good Government League v. Ramongreen1 sentence2005Because we do not conclude that the Harrison County Commissioners Court must make the determinations regarding a newspaper of general circulation, we do not need to address your additional contingent questions. ‘( . . continued) Ramon, 619 S.W.2d 224, 230 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Morton v. Mortongreen1 sentence2002Cf. Morton v. Morton, 982 F.Supp. 675, 687-88 (D.Neb.l997)(party opposing Convention petition for return of child was accorded due process where she was granted a formal evidentiary hearing which she refused to attend). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lofton v. State
green
1 sentence2016See id.; Lofton, 777 S.W.2d at 97 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.