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 2 courts 2014–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2014Moving Sys., LLC, 416 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding) (concluding denial of earlier petition for writ of mandamus for lack of proper certification under Rule 52.3(j) did not preclude consideration of subsequently filed petition) 2 The intellectual disability defense to the imposition of the death penalty was formerly called “mental retardation.” See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 (2002). 2014Moving Sys., LLC, 416 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding) (concluding denial of earlier petition for writ of mandamus for lack of proper certification under Rule 52.3(j) did not preclude consideration of subsequently filed petition) 2 The intellectual disability defense to the imposition of the death penalty was formerly called “mental retardation.” See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
in Re: Arpin American Moving Systems, LLCgreen2 sentences2014Moving Sys., LLC, 416 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding) (concluding denial of earlier petition for writ of mandamus for lack of proper certification under Rule 52.3(j) did not preclude consideration of subsequently filed petition) 2 The intellectual disability defense to the imposition of the death penalty was formerly called “mental retardation.” See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 (2002). 2014Moving Sys., LLC, 416 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding) (concluding denial of earlier petition for writ of mandamus for lack of proper certification under Rule 52.3(j) did not preclude consideration of subsequently filed petition) 2 The intellectual disability defense to the imposition of the death penalty was formerly called “mental retardation.” See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
Hall v. Floridagreen2 sentences2021Petetan Opinion On Rehearing — 80 First, the analysis must be informed by the current medical diagnostic framework for assessing intellectual disability.143 Specifically, courts cannot focus upon one aspect of diagnostic criteria when clinicians would consider other aspects to reach an overall conclusion regarding intellectual ability.144 In both Hall and Moore I, the Supreme Court rejected the use of IQ scores to foreclose inquiry into adaptive deficits because it created too great a risk that someone with an intellectual disability would be executed.145 Second, courts may not place undue emp 2021Petetan Opinion On Rehearing — 80 First, the analysis must be informed by the current medical diagnostic framework for assessing intellectual disability.143 Specifically, courts cannot focus upon one aspect of diagnostic criteria when clinicians would consider other aspects to reach an overall conclusion regarding intellectual ability.144 In both Hall and Moore I, the Supreme Court rejected the use of IQ scores to foreclose inquiry into adaptive deficits because it created too great a risk that someone with an intellectual disability would be executed.145 Second, courts may not place undue emp | 1 | 5 |
Moore v. Texasgreen2 sentences2021Petetan Opinion On Rehearing — 80 First, the analysis must be informed by the current medical diagnostic framework for assessing intellectual disability.143 Specifically, courts cannot focus upon one aspect of diagnostic criteria when clinicians would consider other aspects to reach an overall conclusion regarding intellectual ability.144 In both Hall and Moore I, the Supreme Court rejected the use of IQ scores to foreclose inquiry into adaptive deficits because it created too great a risk that someone with an intellectual disability would be executed.145 Second, courts may not place undue emp 2021Petetan Opinion On Rehearing — 80 First, the analysis must be informed by the current medical diagnostic framework for assessing intellectual disability.143 Specifically, courts cannot focus upon one aspect of diagnostic criteria when clinicians would consider other aspects to reach an overall conclusion regarding intellectual ability.144 In both Hall and Moore I, the Supreme Court rejected the use of IQ scores to foreclose inquiry into adaptive deficits because it created too great a risk that someone with an intellectual disability would be executed.145 Second, courts may not place undue emp | 1 | 2 |
Ex Parte Sosagreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Ex parte Sosa, 364 S.W.3d 889, 890 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Brisenogreen1 sentence2017See Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 8 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mays v. State
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.