7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re BLDgreen2 sentences2018Thus, "we have used the term 'fundamental error' to describe situations in which an appellate court may review error that was neither raised in the trial court nor assigned on appeal." B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d at 350 . 2018See In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340 , 350 (Tex. 2003) ("Historically, we have used the term 'fundamental error' to describe situations in which an appellate court may review error that was neither raised in the trial court nor assigned on appeal.") (citing McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters , 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265 , 266 (1957) (per curiam) ). | 4 | 5 |
McCauley v. Consolidated Underwritersgreen2 sentences2018See In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340 , 350 (Tex. 2003) ("Historically, we have used the term 'fundamental error' to describe situations in which an appellate court may review error that was neither raised in the trial court nor assigned on appeal.") (citing McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters , 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265 , 266 (1957) (per curiam) ). 2018See In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340 , 350 (Tex. 2003) ("Historically, we have used the term 'fundamental error' to describe situations in which an appellate court may review error that was neither raised in the trial court nor assigned on appeal.") (citing McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters , 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265 , 266 (1957) (per curiam) ). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Moore
green
2 sentences2018Beginning in the 1800s, we held that a trial court's entry of a judgment based on inconsistent or insufficient jury answers constitutes fundamental error because the error is "an error of law apparent on the face of the record," Van Valkenberg v. Ruby , 68 Tex. 139 , 3 S.W. 746 , 748 (1887), courts are not "permitted to speculate" about a jury's intentions, Moore v. Moore , 67 Tex. 293 , 3 S.W. 284 , 285-86 (1887), and the law deprives courts of "the power to render judgment, which is given by law and not by consent of the parties," Radford v. Auto. 2018Beginning in the 1800s, we held that a trial court's entry of a judgment based on inconsistent or insufficient jury answers constitutes fundamental error because the error is "an error of law apparent on the face of the record," Van Valkenberg v. Ruby , 68 Tex. 139 , 3 S.W. 746 , 748 (1887), courts are not "permitted to speculate" about a jury's intentions, Moore v. Moore , 67 Tex. 293 , 3 S.W. 284 , 285-86 (1887), and the law deprives courts of "the power to render judgment, which is given by law and not by consent of the parties," Radford v. Auto. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Van Valkenburg v. Ruby
green
2 sentences2018Beginning in the 1800s, we held that a trial court's entry of a judgment based on inconsistent or insufficient jury answers constitutes fundamental error because the error is "an error of law apparent on the face of the record," Van Valkenberg v. Ruby , 68 Tex. 139 , 3 S.W. 746 , 748 (1887), courts are not "permitted to speculate" about a jury's intentions, Moore v. Moore , 67 Tex. 293 , 3 S.W. 284 , 285-86 (1887), and the law deprives courts of "the power to render judgment, which is given by law and not by consent of the parties," Radford v. Auto. 2018Beginning in the 1800s, we held that a trial court's entry of a judgment based on inconsistent or insufficient jury answers constitutes fundamental error because the error is "an error of law apparent on the face of the record," Van Valkenberg v. Ruby , 68 Tex. 139 , 3 S.W. 746 , 748 (1887), courts are not "permitted to speculate" about a jury's intentions, Moore v. Moore , 67 Tex. 293 , 3 S.W. 284 , 285-86 (1887), and the law deprives courts of "the power to render judgment, which is given by law and not by consent of the parties," Radford v. Auto. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.