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.
56 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1873–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Ramzygreen2 sentences2019“But the burden is on the contemnor to establish in the trial court that [she] cannot perform the act necessary to purge [herself].” Jones, 602 S.W.2d at 402 ; see also Ramzy, 424 S.W.2d at 224 (“we treat the contempt order as void if the evidence offered at the hearing or hearings conclusively establishes that at the time of the contempt hearing it was not within the power of the Relator to perform the act or acts which would release him from the punishment authorized by the court’s judgment”). 2019“But the burden is on the contemnor to establish in the trial court that [she] cannot perform the act necessary to purge [herself].” Jones, 602 S.W.2d at 402 ; see also Ramzy, 424 S.W.2d at 224 (“we treat the contempt order as void if the evidence offered at the hearing or hearings conclusively establishes that at the time of the contempt hearing it was not within the power of the Relator to perform the act or acts which would release him from the punishment authorized by the court’s judgment”). | 3 | 3 |
Powell v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Powell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 369, 383 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d). 44 Hernandez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 477, 479 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, pet. ref’d). 45 The videographer testified that his camera could not capture the inside of the bay because of the angle at which it had to be set up at. 2009See Powell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 369, 383 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd). 44 . | 3 | 3 |
State for the Best Interest & Protection of C.O.green2 sentences2005State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of C.O. , 65 S.W.3d 175, 182 (Tex. App.– Tyler 2001, no pet.). 2002State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of C.O. , 65 S.W.3d 175, 182 (Tex. App.- Tyler 2001, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Atkins v. Snydergreen2 sentences2001Harris, 615 S.W.2d at 333 ; Lodge, 597 S.W.2d at 779. 6 *183 Based upon our review of the evidence at the commitment hearing, we conclude the State did not present clear and convincing evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm C.O. was likely to cause serious harm to himself or others or that his ability to function was deteriorating because of his distress. 2001Harris , 615 S.W.2d at 333 ; Lodge , 597 S.W.2d at 779. (6) Based upon our review of the evidence at the commitment hearing, we conclude the State did not present clear and convincing evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm C.O. was likely to cause serious harm to himself or others or that his ability to function was deteriorating because of his distress. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Rohledergreen2 sentences2014Id. at 892 . 2005“We treat the contempt order as void if the evidence offered at the hearing conclusively establishes that at the time of the contempt hearing relator did not have, and had no source from which he might be expected to obtain [the money required to purge himself of contempt].” Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d at 892 . | 1 | 8 |
Brawley v. Bowengreen2 sentences1981Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Armstrong v. Callan, 485 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Spear v. Central Distributing Co., 384 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1977Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex.Sup.1965) and cases cited. | 1 | 7 |
Waltenburg v. Waltenburggreen1 sentence2023See Waltenburg, 270 S.W.3d at 312 . | 1 | 1 |
Circle X Land & Cattle Co. v. Mumford Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2014Dist., 325 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (holding appellate court would review evidence attached to motion to reconsider where order reflected that the affidavits and exhibits were considered by the trial court); Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120, 134 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), pet. denied, 181 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2005) (same, where trial court verbally ruled that it would include the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion to reconsider in the summary judgment record); but see McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S.W.3d 467, 500 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th | 1 | 1 |
Stephens v. Dolcefinogreen1 sentence2014Dist., 325 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (holding appellate court would review evidence attached to motion to reconsider where order reflected that the affidavits and exhibits were considered by the trial court); Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120, 134 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), pet. denied, 181 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2005) (same, where trial court verbally ruled that it would include the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion to reconsider in the summary judgment record); but see McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S.W.3d 467, 500 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Powell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 369, 383 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d). 44 Hernandez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 477, 479 (Tex.App.—Waco 2006, pet. ref’d). 45 The videographer testified that his camera could not capture the inside of the bay because of the angle at which it had to be set up at. | 1 | 1 |
Cates v. Stategreen1 sentence2004The Cates opinion specifically mentioned the trial court’s right to disbelieve the evidence offered by the defense at a Franks hearing. 120 S.W.3d at 358 (“That is not to say, of course, that the trial judge would necessarily believe [the evidence that the defendant wished to offer at a Franks hearing.]”). | 1 | 1 |
Broussard v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Broussard , 910 S.W.2d at 959 (use of analogy to explain evidence is acceptable). | 1 | 1 |
Rudolph v. ABC Pest Control, Inc.green1 sentence1990University Nat’l Bank v. Ernst & Whinney, 773 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.App.1989, no writ); Rudolph v. ABC Pest Control, Inc., 763 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tex.App.1989, writ den.). | 1 | 1 |
University National Bank v. Ernst & Whinneygreen1 sentence1990University Nat’l Bank v. Ernst & Whinney, 773 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.App.1989, no writ); Rudolph v. ABC Pest Control, Inc., 763 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tex.App.1989, writ den.). | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Doshergreen1 sentence1982Flores v. Dosher, 622 S.W.2d 573, at 574 (Tex.1981); Lundstrom v. Lundstrom, 516 S.W.2d 705, at 709 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Lundstrom v. Lundstromgreen1 sentence1982Flores v. Dosher, 622 S.W.2d 573, at 574 (Tex.1981); Lundstrom v. Lundstrom, 516 S.W.2d 705, at 709 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Kollenborngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Seltzergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex parte Fishergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McMahan v. Greenwoodgreen1 sentence2014Dist., 325 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (holding appellate court would review evidence attached to motion to reconsider where order reflected that the affidavits and exhibits were considered by the trial court); Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120, 134 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), pet. denied, 181 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2005) (same, where trial court verbally ruled that it would include the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion to reconsider in the summary judgment record); but see McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S.W.3d 467, 500 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks
green
2 sentences1981Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Armstrong v. Callan, 485 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Spear v. Central Distributing Co., 384 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1981Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Armstrong v. Callan, 485 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Spear v. Central Distributing Co., 384 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 7 | 1965–1981 |
Ex Parte Townsley
green
2 sentences2009Id. 1978Ex parte Townsley, 156 Tex. 402 , 297 S.W.2d 111 (1956). | 5 | 1967–2009 |
Barrington v. Duncan
green
2 sentences1981Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Armstrong v. Callan, 485 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Spear v. Central Distributing Co., 384 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1981Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Armstrong v. Callan, 485 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Spear v. Central Distributing Co., 384 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 5 | 1965–1981 |
State v. Wair
green
2 sentences1965Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); State v. Wair, 163 Tex. 69 , 351 S.W.2d 878 (1961).” Appellant claims misconduct on account of alleged improper statements made during the deliberations of the jury by jurors Mrs. Hyett and Mrs. Mielsch. 1965Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); State v. Wair, 163 Tex. 69 , 351 S.W.2d 878 (1961).” Appellant claims misconduct on account of alleged improper statements made during the deliberations of the jury by jurors Mrs. Hyett and Mrs. Mielsch. | 5 | 1965–1965 |
Ex Parte White
green
2 sentences1972In Kollenborn the court noted that it couldn’t weigh the evidence to determine whether it preponderated against the judgment, but could treat the contempt order as void if the evidence offered at the hearing conclusively established involuntary inability to perform, citing Ex parte White, 154 Tex. 126 , 274 S.W.2d 542 (1955). 1972In Kollenborn the court noted that it couldn’t weigh the evidence to determine whether it preponderated against the judgment, but could treat the contempt order as void if the evidence offered at the hearing conclusively established involuntary inability to perform, citing Ex parte White, 154 Tex. 126 , 274 S.W.2d 542 (1955). | 3 | 1955–1972 |
Ex parte Jones
green
2 sentences2019“But the burden is on the contemnor to establish in the trial court that [she] cannot perform the act necessary to purge [herself].” Jones, 602 S.W.2d at 402 ; see also Ramzy, 424 S.W.2d at 224 (“we treat the contempt order as void if the evidence offered at the hearing or hearings conclusively establishes that at the time of the contempt hearing it was not within the power of the Relator to perform the act or acts which would release him from the punishment authorized by the court’s judgment”). 2019“But the burden is on the contemnor to establish in the trial court that [she] cannot perform the act necessary to purge [herself].” Jones, 602 S.W.2d at 402 ; see also Ramzy, 424 S.W.2d at 224 (“we treat the contempt order as void if the evidence offered at the hearing or hearings conclusively establishes that at the time of the contempt hearing it was not within the power of the Relator to perform the act or acts which would release him from the punishment authorized by the court’s judgment”). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 574 . 2001Id. at 574 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2001Harris, 615 S.W.2d at 333 ; Lodge, 597 S.W.2d at 779. 6 *183 Based upon our review of the evidence at the commitment hearing, we conclude the State did not present clear and convincing evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm C.O. was likely to cause serious harm to himself or others or that his ability to function was deteriorating because of his distress. 2001Harris , 615 S.W.2d at 333 ; Lodge , 597 S.W.2d at 779. (6) Based upon our review of the evidence at the commitment hearing, we conclude the State did not present clear and convincing evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm C.O. was likely to cause serious harm to himself or others or that his ability to function was deteriorating because of his distress. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Ex Parte Gonzales
green
2 sentences1970Ex parte Townsley, 156 Tex. 402 , 297 S.W.2d 111 (1956); Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Sup.1967); Ex parte Gonzales, 414 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Sup.1967). 1970Ex Parte Townsley, 156 Tex. 402 , 297 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.S.Ct.); Ex Parte Rohleder, Jr., 424 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.S.Ct.); Ex Parte Gonzales, 414 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.S.Ct.). | 2 | 1970–1970 |
Dolcefino v. Stephens
green
1 sentence2014Dist., 325 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (holding appellate court would review evidence attached to motion to reconsider where order reflected that the affidavits and exhibits were considered by the trial court); Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120, 134 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), pet. denied, 181 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2005) (same, where trial court verbally ruled that it would include the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion to reconsider in the summary judgment record); but see McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S.W.3d 467, 500 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kennedy v. City of Dallas
green
1 sentence2006Kennedy, 201 S.W.2d at 842 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Spear v. CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
green
1 sentence1981Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Armstrong v. Callan, 485 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Spear v. Central Distributing Co., 384 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Armstrong v. Callan
neutral
1 sentence1981Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317 , 190 S.W.2d 62 (1945); Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510 , 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Armstrong v. Callan, 485 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Spear v. Central Distributing Co., 384 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Roming v. McDonald green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Ives v. Watson green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Ex Parte Howe neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Soobitsky v. CONTINENTAL TRAILWAYS TOURS, INCORPORATED neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Estate of Moore, in Re green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Grider v. Noonan green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Ex Parte Tyler green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Brown v. State neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Ex Parte Jones green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Charles v. State green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Ex Parte La Rocca green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| McCandless v. State green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Anders v. State neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Connor v. Connor green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Worthen v. Peoples Loan & Homestead Co. green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Sarris v. Christie green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Scott v. Scott neutral | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Booth v. Texas Employers' Insurance green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Robinson neutral | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Bender v. Crawford green | 1 | 1873–1873 |
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.