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 1995–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alford v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See In re A.K., No. 02-20-00410-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3499 , at *40 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 6, 2021, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (noting that “[t]his court[] . . . has repeatedly held that a juvenile has no right of confrontation at a discretionary transfer hearing”); Milligan v. State, No. 03-04-00531-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 1356 , at *11 (Tex. App.— Austin Feb. 16, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (recognizing that it “has been held that neither the Sixth Amendment nor the hearsay rule applies to a juvenile certification hearing”); In re S.J.M., 922 S.W.2d 241 , 242 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist 2006In re S.J.M. , 922 S.W.2d 241 , 242 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ); Alford v. State , 806 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991), aff'd , 866 S.W.2d 619, 625 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Alford v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See In re A.K., No. 02-20-00410-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3499 , at *40 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 6, 2021, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (noting that “[t]his court[] . . . has repeatedly held that a juvenile has no right of confrontation at a discretionary transfer hearing”); Milligan v. State, No. 03-04-00531-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 1356 , at *11 (Tex. App.— Austin Feb. 16, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (recognizing that it “has been held that neither the Sixth Amendment nor the hearsay rule applies to a juvenile certification hearing”); In re S.J.M., 922 S.W.2d 241 , 242 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist 2006In re S.J.M. , 922 S.W.2d 241 , 242 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ); Alford v. State , 806 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991), aff'd , 866 S.W.2d 619, 625 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Matter of PACgreen2 sentences2022APPLICABLE LAW “A juvenile certification hearing is not a trial on the merits.” See State v. Lopez, 196 S.W.3d 872, 874 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing In re P.A.C., 562 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ)). 2006In the Matter of P.A.C., 562 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1978, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2022APPLICABLE LAW “A juvenile certification hearing is not a trial on the merits.” See State v. Lopez, 196 S.W.3d 872, 874 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing In re P.A.C., 562 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ)). 2016Lopez, 196 S.W.3d at 874 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re RGSgreen2 sentences2021App. 1993) (en banc); In re R.G.S., 575 S.W.2d 113 , 117–18 (Tex. Civ. 1995In re R.G.S. , 575 S.W.2d 113, 118 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2 |
LMC v. Stategreen1 sentence1995See L.M.C. v. State , 861 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that juvenile's rights under U.S. and Texas constitutions were not abridged by use of confession because hearing did not determine guilt or innocence); In re J.T.H. , 779 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no writ) (holding that juvenile's right to state and federal equal protection are not denied by juvenile adjudication); A.D.P. v. State , 646 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ) (holding psychiatric report admissible in juvenile certification hearing and Fifth and Sixth Amendm | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of SJM
green
2 sentences2021See In re A.K., No. 02-20-00410-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3499 , at *40 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 6, 2021, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (noting that “[t]his court[] . . . has repeatedly held that a juvenile has no right of confrontation at a discretionary transfer hearing”); Milligan v. State, No. 03-04-00531-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 1356 , at *11 (Tex. App.— Austin Feb. 16, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (recognizing that it “has been held that neither the Sixth Amendment nor the hearsay rule applies to a juvenile certification hearing”); In re S.J.M., 922 S.W.2d 241 , 242 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist 2006In re S.J.M. , 922 S.W.2d 241 , 242 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ); Alford v. State , 806 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991), aff'd , 866 S.W.2d 619, 625 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 2006–2021 |
Dunn v. State
green
1 sentence2015The Court, citing to Dunn v. State, 733 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987), wrote: It has long been the rule in this State that "[w]hen an appellant, through no fault of his own or his counsel's, is deprived of a part of the statement of facts which he diligently requested, the appellate court cannot affirm the conviction. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
ADP v. State
green
1 sentence1995See L.M.C. v. State , 861 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that juvenile's rights under U.S. and Texas constitutions were not abridged by use of confession because hearing did not determine guilt or innocence); In re J.T.H. , 779 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no writ) (holding that juvenile's right to state and federal equal protection are not denied by juvenile adjudication); A.D.P. v. State , 646 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ) (holding psychiatric report admissible in juvenile certification hearing and Fifth and Sixth Amendm | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Matter of Jth
green
1 sentence1995See L.M.C. v. State , 861 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that juvenile's rights under U.S. and Texas constitutions were not abridged by use of confession because hearing did not determine guilt or innocence); In re J.T.H. , 779 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no writ) (holding that juvenile's right to state and federal equal protection are not denied by juvenile adjudication); A.D.P. v. State , 646 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ) (holding psychiatric report admissible in juvenile certification hearing and Fifth and Sixth Amendm | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Matter of AF
green
1 sentence1995A.F. , 895 S.W.2d at 485 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
G----R----L v. State
green
1 sentence1995See L.M.C. v. State , 861 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (holding that juvenile's rights under U.S. and Texas constitutions were not abridged by use of confession because hearing did not determine guilt or innocence); In re J.T.H. , 779 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no writ) (holding that juvenile's right to state and federal equal protection are not denied by juvenile adjudication); A.D.P. v. State , 646 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ) (holding psychiatric report admissible in juvenile certification hearing and Fifth and Sixth Amendm | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.