7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blankenbeker v. Texas Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2003Safety , 990 S.W.2d 813, 818-19 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, pet. denied) (holding ALJ's error in finding wrong date of violation's occurrence did not affect driver's substantial rights requiring reversal of ALJ's decision). 2003Safety, 990 S.W.2d 813, 818-19 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied) (holding ALJ’s error 8 in finding wrong date of violation’s occurrence did not affect driver’s substantial rights requiring reversal of ALJ’s decision). | 2 | 2 |
Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2024See Turcios, 2016 WL 3225491 , at *3; see also Gonzalez, 555 S.W.3d at 717 ; Cantu, 944 S.W.2d at 495 . | 1 | 1 |
Jamail v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Jamail v. State, 731 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), aff’d, 787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. Crim. 2021See Jamail v. State, 731 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), aff’d, 787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jamail v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Jamail v. State, 731 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), aff’d, 787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. Crim. 2021See Jamail v. State, 731 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), aff’d, 787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Latimergreen2 sentences2021Safety v. Latimer, 939 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). 9 Moreover, Huerta did not testify at the ALJ hearing, did not provide any facts to the contrary, and failed to cite to any authority in the trial court indicating that his lack of signature on the DIC-24 equates to “no evidence” that Officer Avalos provided him with the required statutory warnings. 2021Safety v. Latimer, 939 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). 9 Moreover, Huerta did not testify at the ALJ hearing, did not provide any facts to the contrary, and failed to cite to any authority in the trial court indicating that his lack of signature on the DIC-24 equates to “no evidence” that Officer Avalos provided him with the required statutory warnings. | 1 | 1 |
In Re MAHgreen1 sentence2013See Tex. Occ.Code § 53.023(a)(5); see, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 68 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (noting that, in enacting sex offender registration statute, legislature considered the “unique threat sex offenders present to public safety, the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders, the low incidence of rehabilitation among sex offenders, and that sexual misconduct often begins as a juvenile” (quoting In re M.A.H., 20 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, no pet.))). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Tex. Occ.Code § 53.023(a)(5); see, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 68 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (noting that, in enacting sex offender registration statute, legislature considered the “unique threat sex offenders present to public safety, the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders, the low incidence of rehabilitation among sex offenders, and that sexual misconduct often begins as a juvenile” (quoting In re M.A.H., 20 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, no pet.))). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P.green1 sentence2007Thompson v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 902 S.W.2d 13,18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cantu
green
1 sentence2024See Turcios, 2016 WL 3225491 , at *3; see also Gonzalez, 555 S.W.3d at 717 ; Cantu, 944 S.W.2d at 495 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. One 1985 Mercedes, and Kenneth Robert Glenn, Intervenor-Appellant
green
2 sentences2020As the TABC points out, “[e]arlier notice of the first or second offense would have compromised law 21 In making this finding, the ALJ applied the standard set forth in a case cited by El Duranguense: United States v. One 1985 Mercedes, 917 F.2d 415 , 422 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that a court may judge agency action to be arbitrary and capricious when the agency either did not follow its own policies or neglected to formulate necessary policies). 2020The standard suggested is that an ALJ must enquire whether the TABC “examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action, ‘including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id. at 422 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.