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.
8 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1911–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
David Blake Turner v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Pitts also relies on Turner v. State, in which the Amarillo Court of Appeals determined that the following jury charge language contained error: [I]f you unanimously believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, . . . on or about June 1, 2013 through August 1, 2013, in the County of Randall, and State of Texas, during a period that was 30 days or more in duration and when the Defendant was 17 years of age or older, did intentionally or knowingly commit two or more acts of sexual abuse against [the complainant], a child younger than 14 years of age . . . . 573 S.W.3d | 1 | 1 |
City of Keller v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2006NOTES [1] As presented in appellant's brief, the ten issues on appeal are the following: (1) the trial court's erroneous admission of the testimony of Dr. Susan Escudier and Dr. Billie Marek constituted harmful error probably resulting in the rendition of an improper judgment; (2) the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the testimony of new and independent cause evidence constituted harmful error probably resulting in the rendition of an improper judgment; (3) appellant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on "new and independent" cause; (4) appel | 1 | 1 |
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2006NOTES [1] As presented in appellant's brief, the ten issues on appeal are the following: (1) the trial court's erroneous admission of the testimony of Dr. Susan Escudier and Dr. Billie Marek constituted harmful error probably resulting in the rendition of an improper judgment; (2) the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the testimony of new and independent cause evidence constituted harmful error probably resulting in the rendition of an improper judgment; (3) appellant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on "new and independent" cause; (4) appel | 1 | 1 |
Ancira v. Stategreen1 sentence1982Ancira v. State, 516 S.W.2d 924, 927 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cosio v. State
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Zapata v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
green
1 sentence1981In upholding the validity of the waiver provision the holding of the court of civil appeals conflicts with section 7.07(4) of the Consumer Credit Code. 1 Zapata v. Ford Motor Credit Company, 615 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.1981). 24 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 377 (May 9, 1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Beversdorff v. Dienger
neutral
2 sentences1924A similar rule was made by our Supreme Court in the case of Beversdorff v. Dienger, 107 Tex. 88 , 174 S. W. 576 , in an appeal from the county court to the district court in a probate proceeding. 1924A similar rule was made by our Supreme Court in the case of Beversdorff v. Dienger, 107 Tex. 88 , 174 S. W. 576 , in an appeal from the county court to the district court in a probate proceeding. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Edwards v. Morton
green
2 sentences1924In Edwards v. Morton, 92 Tex. 152 , 46 S. W. 792 , where a plaintiff, in whose favor a judgment was rendered with which he was dissatisfied, appealed from the justice court to the county court, our Supreme Court held that in such case no bond was required from the judgment in plaintiff’s favor, nor was notice of appeal necessary on the ground that the statutes regulating appeals from justice court to the county court in such a case contained no such requirement. 1924In Edwards v. Morton, 92 Tex. 152 , 46 S. W. 792 , where a plaintiff, in whose favor a judgment was rendered with which he was dissatisfied, appealed from the justice court to the county court, our Supreme Court held that in such case no bond was required from the judgment in plaintiff’s favor, nor was notice of appeal necessary on the ground that the statutes regulating appeals from justice court to the county court in such a case contained no such requirement. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Parks v. San Antonio Traction Co.
neutral
1 sentence1911The defendant could not have been prejudiced by the charge as far as it went.” The same doctrine, in effect, was announced in the case of Parks v. San Antonio Traction Co., 100 Texas, 222 , where the court say: “The charge in this case contained no such instruction in favor of the plaintiff. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Yellow Pine Oil Co. v. Noble
neutral
1 sentence1911The distinction, upon the mere statement of it, may appear to be a close one, but it is really a substantial and important one, for upon it depends the further question as to the duty of parties to aid the trial courts in a submission of their cause of action or grounds of defense by supplying mere omissions and deficiencies in instructions given.” In this case it is also said: “The rule in our practice which permits a party to complain in the appellate courts of positive errors in the charges of trial judges, without having in any way excepted or called attention to them at the trial, is quit | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.