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 1992–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Melodie McFarland and Pamela Lykes v. Stacie Boisseaugreen2 sentences2018Cimco bases its argument on McFarland v. Boisseau, a defamation case that concerned a broad-form submission question that comingled valid and invalid theories of liability. 365 S.W.3d 449, 454-55 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.j 2011, no pet.). 2018Cimco bases its argument on McFarland v. Boisseau, a defamation case that concerned a broad-form submission question that comingled valid and invalid theories of liability. 365 S.W.3d 449, 454-55 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.j 2011, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Ford v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Defense Counsel’s Pre-Trial Motions And Oral Objection Were Suffi- cient To Put the Trial Court and the State On Notice As To the Nature of the Complaint Under the test this Court set forth in Lankston, 827 S.W.2d at 909 , an objection preserves error if it is “sufficiently clear to provide the trial judge and opposing coun- sel an opportunity to address and, if necessary, correct the purported error.” Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Reyna v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 179 (Confrontation Clause error not preserved where counsel argued at trial only that excluded evidence on a witness’s credibility was not hearsay); Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Paredes v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 179 (Confrontation Clause error not preserved where counsel argued at trial only that excluded evidence on a witness’s credibility was not hearsay); Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rue v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Stated differently, an objection preserves error “if the record indicates that the trial judge understood appellant’s request to encompass the matters about which an *300 appellant now complains.” Rue v. State, 288 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref d). | 1 | 1 |
Gilgon, Inc. v. Hartgreen2 sentences1997Religious of the Sacred Heart v. City of Houston, 836 S.W.2d 606, 613-14 (Tex.1992); Gilgon, Inc. v. Hart, 893 S.W.2d 562, 566 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). 1997Religious of the Sacred, Heart v. City of Houston, 836 S.W.2d 606, 613-14 (Tex.1992); Gilgon, Inc. v. Hart, 893 S.W.2d 562, 566 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Religious of the Sacred Heart of Texas v. City of Houstongreen2 sentences1997Religious of the Sacred Heart v. City of Houston, 836 S.W.2d 606, 613-14 (Tex.1992); Gilgon, Inc. v. Hart, 893 S.W.2d 562, 566 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). 1997Religious of the Sacred, Heart v. City of Houston, 836 S.W.2d 606, 613-14 (Tex.1992); Gilgon, Inc. v. Hart, 893 S.W.2d 562, 566 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. State
green
1 sentence2022Bennett, 235 S.W.3d at 243 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lankston v. State
green
1 sentence2015Defense Counsel’s Pre-Trial Motions And Oral Objection Were Suffi- cient To Put the Trial Court and the State On Notice As To the Nature of the Complaint Under the test this Court set forth in Lankston, 827 S.W.2d at 909 , an objection preserves error if it is “sufficiently clear to provide the trial judge and opposing coun- sel an opportunity to address and, if necessary, correct the purported error.” Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Montgomery v. State
green
1 sentence1992Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 388 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |