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.
9 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1975–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mosley v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 258 (Tex. Crim. 2015See Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 258 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Cosada Villa of Missouri, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Social Services & Administrative Hearing Commissiongreen2 sentences2002The harmfulness of any error will be discussed later in light of Almanza v. State, 868 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. 2002The harmfulness of any error will be discussed later in light of Almanza v. State , 868 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Womble v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Evid. 403 (stating that a trial court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of needlessly presenting cumulative evidence); Guerra v. State, 942 S.W.2d 28, 33 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1996, pet. ref’d) (citing Womble v. State, 618 S.W.2d 59, 61 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rivera-Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2026Id. at 234, 238 . | 1 | 1 |
Guerra v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Evid. 403 (stating that a trial court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of needlessly presenting cumulative evidence); Guerra v. State, 942 S.W.2d 28, 33 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1996, pet. ref’d) (citing Womble v. State, 618 S.W.2d 59, 61 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Mosley v. Texasgreen2 sentences2014See Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070 , 119 S.Ct. 1466 , 143 L.Ed.2d 550 (1999). 2014See Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070 , 119 S.Ct. 1466 , 143 L.Ed.2d 550 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Gardner v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See also, Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368, 371-372 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1975); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). 9 In effect Emanus and its progeny stand for the proposition that in order to establish he is harmed by the denial of intelligent use of a peremptory challenge as to a single veniremember, a defendant must, in effect, blindly exercise a peremptory against the veniremember to prevent him from sitting on the jury. 10 Only if this prophylactic use of the peremptory challenge subsequently results in t 1996See also, Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368, 371-372 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 *471 (1975); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [9] In effect Emanus and its progeny stand for the proposition that in order to establish he is harmed by the denial of intelligent use of a peremptory challenge as to a single veniremember, a defendant must, in effect, blindly exercise a peremptory against the veniremember to prevent him from sitting on the jury. [10] Only if this prophylactic use of the peremptory challenge subsequently res | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See also, Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368, 371-372 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1975); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). 9 In effect Emanus and its progeny stand for the proposition that in order to establish he is harmed by the denial of intelligent use of a peremptory challenge as to a single veniremember, a defendant must, in effect, blindly exercise a peremptory against the veniremember to prevent him from sitting on the jury. 10 Only if this prophylactic use of the peremptory challenge subsequently results in t 1996See also, Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368, 371-372 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 *471 (1975); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [9] In effect Emanus and its progeny stand for the proposition that in order to establish he is harmed by the denial of intelligent use of a peremptory challenge as to a single veniremember, a defendant must, in effect, blindly exercise a peremptory against the veniremember to prevent him from sitting on the jury. [10] Only if this prophylactic use of the peremptory challenge subsequently res | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Emanus v. State
green
2 sentences1996Id., 526 S.W.2d at 808 . . 1996Id., 526 S.W.2d at 808 . [4] Indeed, if we did differentiate between capital and noncapital cases as the majority suggests, the majority's reliance on Emanus is entirely misplaced because Emanus was a non-capital case. [5] The majority recognizes these capital cases stand for the proposition that the denial of a proper question is reversible error. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Vines v. State
green
1 sentence1975Appellant’s reliance on Morris v. State, 411 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), Vines v. State, 479 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and Jones v. State, 496 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) is misplaced. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1975Appellant’s reliance on Morris v. State, 411 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), Vines v. State, 479 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and Jones v. State, 496 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) is misplaced. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Morris v. State
green
1 sentence1975Appellant’s reliance on Morris v. State, 411 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), Vines v. State, 479 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and Jones v. State, 496 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) is misplaced. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.