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.
7 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
De Freece v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See De Freece v. State, 848 S.W.2d 150, 160 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). 1998See De Freece v. State, 848 S.W.2d 150, 160 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). | 2 | 2 |
Rosales v. Stategreen1 sentence2023We have never extended or otherwise applied Williams’s approval of ex parte hearings on the appointment of defense experts to the context of criminal discovery. 68 See Griffith, 983 S.W.2d at 286 (noting, pursuant to Ake and Williams, it is “without question that Ake requires the appointment of expert regardless of field of expertise”); Cf. Rosales, 4 S.W.3d at 232 (Ake does not apply to request to accompany counsel to crime scene because Ake “deals with when a trial court is constitutionally required” to appoint a defense expert). | 1 | 1 |
United States Government v. Marksgreen1 sentence2023Williams, 958 S.W.2d at 191-92 . 74 Marks, 949 S.W.2d at 325 (“we note that the law in this State, as in most jurisdictions, looks upon ex parte proceedings with extreme disfavor.”). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Rosenthal v. Poegreen1 sentence2023Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 203 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Stategreen1 sentence2023We have never extended or otherwise applied Williams’s approval of ex parte hearings on the appointment of defense experts to the context of criminal discovery. 68 See Griffith, 983 S.W.2d at 286 (noting, pursuant to Ake and Williams, it is “without question that Ake requires the appointment of expert regardless of field of expertise”); Cf. Rosales, 4 S.W.3d at 232 (Ake does not apply to request to accompany counsel to crime scene because Ake “deals with when a trial court is constitutionally required” to appoint a defense expert). | 1 | 1 |
Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bankgreen1 sentence1985See Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, Hearne, supra, at 347; Texas Health Facilities Commission v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984); Consumers Water, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, 651 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.App.-Austin 1983, 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grace v. Structural Pest Control Bd. of Tex.
green
2 sentences1985Although section 15 of the act clearly allows the appointment of a hearing examiner in such cases, see Grace v. Structural Pest Control Board of Texas, 620 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the commission must make the ultimate decision and include findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with sections 15 and 16. 1985Although section 15 ofrhe act clearly allovs the appointment of a hearing examiner in such cases, see Grace v. Structural Pest Control Boa::dof Texas, 620 S.W.2d 157 (K Civ. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2023Williams, 958 S.W.2d at 191-92 . 74 Marks, 949 S.W.2d at 325 (“we note that the law in this State, as in most jurisdictions, looks upon ex parte proceedings with extreme disfavor.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2012Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 , 105 S. Ct. 1087 , 1091–92 (1985). 4 expert. 2012Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 , 105 S. Ct. 1087 , 1091–92 (1985). 4 expert. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Texas Health Facilities Commission v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc.
green
1 sentence1985See Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, Hearne, supra, at 347; Texas Health Facilities Commission v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984); Consumers Water, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, 651 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.App.-Austin 1983, no writ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Consumers Water, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission
green
1 sentence1985See Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, Hearne, supra, at 347; Texas Health Facilities Commission v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984); Consumers Water, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, 651 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.App.-Austin 1983, no writ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Buckley v. Valeo
green
2 sentences1978The dissent’s reliance on Buckley v. Valco, 424 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) is similarly not helpful in the situation here presented, since the instant case has an incumbent de jure, whereas the incumbent in Buckley was appointed under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as amended in 1974) which violated the appointment clause. 1978The dissent’s reliance on Buckley v. Valco, 424 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) is similarly not helpful in the situation here presented, since the instant case has an incumbent de jure, whereas the incumbent in Buckley was appointed under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as amended in 1974) which violated the appointment clause. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.