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 3 courts 1932–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Escobar v. Harris Countygreen2 sentences2019See Escobar, 442 S.W.3d at 629 ; see also Mukoro v. Jackson, No. 01-17-00466-CV, 2018 WL 1864630 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 19, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (to overcome assertion of official immunity, plaintiff must present evidence to create fact issue as to whether “the official’s conduct violated a federal right,” and “under the circumstances, that right was sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right”). 18 On appeal, the officers do not challenge the second prong of the qualified immunity test, whether 2019See Escobar, 442 S.W.3d at 629 ; see also Mukoro v. Jackson, No. 01-17-00466-CV, 2018 WL 1864630 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 19, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (to overcome assertion of official immunity, plaintiff must present evidence to create fact issue as to whether “the official’s conduct violated a federal right,” and “under the circumstances, that right was sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right”). 18 On appeal, the officers do not challenge the second prong of the qualified immunity test, whether | 1 | 1 |
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrichgreen1 sentence2011See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 375-76 (noting that the modern justification for immunity is protecting the public fisc). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. City of Longviewgreen1 sentence1982See generally Bennett v. City of Longview, 268 S.W. 786 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1925, writ ref’d n.r.e.); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rorie v. Avenue Shipping Co.
green
2 sentences2018Patterson, was taken. been [**9] successful in getting any response; that they had no statements with information from the officers At the hearing of the motions to dismiss, evidence was aboard the ship; that in order to show that the Nicole Mitchell Page 5 of 8 414 S.W.2d 948, *951 ; 1967 Tex. App. LEXIS 2890 , **9 operations in question were not performed in any stated it would permit appellant to offer testimony to manner which would render the ship liable, it would be explain the delay. necessary to look to the testimony of employees of the City of Galveston and employees of Strachan, beca 2018Patterson, was taken. been [**9] successful in getting any response; that they had no statements with information from the officers At the hearing of the motions to dismiss, evidence was aboard the ship; that in order to show that the Nicole Mitchell Page 5 of 8 414 S.W.2d 948, *951 ; 1967 Tex. App. LEXIS 2890 , **9 operations in question were not performed in any stated it would permit appellant to offer testimony to manner which would render the ship liable, it would be explain the delay. necessary to look to the testimony of employees of the City of Galveston and employees of Strachan, beca | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Boles v. State
green
2 sentences1978In Boles *473 v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 521 , 132 S.W.2d 881, 883 , it is stated: “Whether information received by the officers constituted probable cause is a question primarily for the court, but if the facts upon which the officers claim to act are controverted, it becomes an issue of fact for the jury under proper instructions.” In Lee v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 18 , 70 S.W.2d 185, 187 , this Court held: “A sharp issue was raised as to whether the facts existed which were claimed by the state to constitute probable cause. 1978In Boles *473 v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 521 , 132 S.W.2d 881, 883 , it is stated: “Whether information received by the officers constituted probable cause is a question primarily for the court, but if the facts upon which the officers claim to act are controverted, it becomes an issue of fact for the jury under proper instructions.” In Lee v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 18 , 70 S.W.2d 185, 187 , this Court held: “A sharp issue was raised as to whether the facts existed which were claimed by the state to constitute probable cause. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences1978In Boles *473 v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 521 , 132 S.W.2d 881, 883 , it is stated: “Whether information received by the officers constituted probable cause is a question primarily for the court, but if the facts upon which the officers claim to act are controverted, it becomes an issue of fact for the jury under proper instructions.” In Lee v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 18 , 70 S.W.2d 185, 187 , this Court held: “A sharp issue was raised as to whether the facts existed which were claimed by the state to constitute probable cause. 1978In Boles *473 v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 521 , 132 S.W.2d 881, 883 , it is stated: “Whether information received by the officers constituted probable cause is a question primarily for the court, but if the facts upon which the officers claim to act are controverted, it becomes an issue of fact for the jury under proper instructions.” In Lee v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 18 , 70 S.W.2d 185, 187 , this Court held: “A sharp issue was raised as to whether the facts existed which were claimed by the state to constitute probable cause. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Paprskar v. State
green
1 sentence1975This Court has addressed itself to a similar situation to the one here presented in Paprskar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 731 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
McPherson v. State
green
1 sentence1939McPherson v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
McLaughlin v. State
green
2 sentences1932Rep., 307 , 4 S. W. (2d) 54 , and other cases there cited. 1932The responsibility for the appearance in the record of Spicer’s testimony not resting upon the appellant, it cannot operate against him as a waiver of his objection to the testimony of the officers on the principle stated in McLaughlin v. State, 109 Texas Crim. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.