8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nussbaum v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2009Cf. Nussbaum v. City of Dallas , 948 S.W.2d 305, 307 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1996, no writ)(holding that under Tex. Loc. 2009Cf. Nussbaum v. City of Dallas, 948 S.W.2d 305, 307 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996, no writ)(holding that under Tex. Loc. | 3 | 3 |
Tellez v. City of Socorrogreen1 sentence2016See Tellez, 296 S.W.3d at 650 (“Because the writ of certiorari was not requested or issued, Tellez had the burden of providing a sufficient record at the hearing to determine the illegality of the Board of Adjustment’s decision.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Guinthergreen1 sentence2006See Ex parte Guinther, 982 S.W.2d 506, 509 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
CMM Grain Co., Inc. v. Ozgunduzgreen1 sentence2001See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hicks v. State
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Barber v. State
green
1 sentence1976Barber v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 412 ; Conrad v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 537 S.W.2d 755 ; Simmons v. State, 511 S.W.2d 308 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Curry v. State
green
1 sentence1976Appellant cites Curry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 100 , where this Court held that after the trial court holds a hearing under Art. 40.09, Sec. 5, V.A.C.C.P. 1 to determine if a defendant is indigent: “If the court finds he is not indigent, a sufficient record of the hearing on indi-gency must be made so that in the event of another appeal, this Court will be able to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion or not.” The State notes in its brief that appellant was represented by retained counsel and was out on bond at the time of the revocation hearing and “out on bond pending a | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Conrad v. State
green
1 sentence1976Barber v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 412 ; Conrad v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 537 S.W.2d 755 ; Simmons v. State, 511 S.W.2d 308 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Simmons v. State
green
1 sentence1976Barber v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 412 ; Conrad v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 537 S.W.2d 755 ; Simmons v. State, 511 S.W.2d 308 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.