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 1995–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leday v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Regardless, even if Parks’s challenge to the full two-minute-and-thirteen-second segment had been preserved, even if the appellate record were sufficient to confirm 12 We reviewed the original video exhibit admitted into evidence, and that exhibit matches the version of the video included in the electronic appellate record. 19 preservation, and even if the trial court had erred by failing to redact the segment, the error would have been harmless. “[T]he improper admission of evidence does not constitute reversible error if the same facts are shown by other evidence which is not challenged.” Re | 1 | 1 |
London v. Stategreen1 sentence2023And “[t]he failure to provide a sufficient appellate record precludes appellate review of a claim.” London v. State, 490 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
James v. Calkinsgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc., 520 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, pet. dism’d) (concluding that non-movant’s “proof [fell] below the element-by-element, claim-by-claim exactitude required by the TCPA” under the second step of the procedure); James v. Calkins, 446 S.W.3d 135, 148 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (concluding that “appellees adduced no evidence to show that any fiduciary duty was breached” and, thus, that “evidence does not clearly and specifically establish all of the essential elements of a prima facie constructive fraud c | 1 | 1 |
Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc.green1 sentence2018See, e.g., Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc., 520 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, pet. dism’d) (concluding that non-movant’s “proof [fell] below the element-by-element, claim-by-claim exactitude required by the TCPA” under the second step of the procedure); James v. Calkins, 446 S.W.3d 135, 148 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (concluding that “appellees adduced no evidence to show that any fiduciary duty was breached” and, thus, that “evidence does not clearly and specifically establish all of the essential elements of a prima facie constructive fraud c | 1 | 1 |
Warren Whisenhunt v. Matthew Lippincott and Creg Parksgreen1 sentence2015The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that because the Act does not apply to private communications, it was inapplicable to this case. 416 S.W.3d 689, 699-700 (Tex.App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authoritygreen1 sentence1995Because El Periódico did not file a response to Parks’ motion for summary judgment, it can attack the judgment only on the basis that Parks did not establish his right to *35 summary judgment as a matter of law. 1 City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 679 (Tex.1979); McCord v. Memorial Medical Ctr. | 1 | 1 |
Stromberg Carlson Leasing Corp. v. Central Welding Supply Co.green1 sentence1995Hosp., 750 S.W.2d 862, 364 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1988, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barefield v. State
green
2 sentences2000Rocha , 16 S.W.3d at 12 ; Barefield , 784 S.W.2d at 41 . 2000Rocha, 16 S.W.3d at 12; Barefield, 784 S.W.2d at 41 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Smallwood v. State
green
1 sentence2023See Rodriguez v. State, No. 03-18-00260-CR, 2018 WL 6425018 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 7, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding defendant did not rebut presumptions that his trial counsel represented him effectively during motion-for-new-trial stage and that trial counsel discussed option of filing new-trial motion but defendant rejected it where trial counsel did not withdraw until last day of “the 30-day period for filing a motion for new trial”); Smallwood v. State, 296 S.W.3d 729 , 734–36 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (holding defend | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Saffle v. Parks
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008We disagree-” Id. at 489 , 110 S.Ct. at 1260-61 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Rocha v. State
green
1 sentence2000Rocha , 16 S.W.3d at 12 ; Barefield , 784 S.W.2d at 41 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.