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 2 courts 1893–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barnett v. Coppell North Texas Court, Ltd.green2 sentences2007Barnett v. Coppell N.Tex Court, Ltd., 123 S.W.3d 804, 824 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied). 2007Barnett v. Coppell N.Tex Court, Ltd., 123 S.W.3d 804, 824 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Ngo v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim. 13 App. 2005 ); Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Swearingen v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim. 13 App. 2005 ); Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesmagreen2 sentences2014Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 44 . 2014Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 44 (Tex.2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shupe v. Lingafelter
green
1 sentence2007Shupe, 192 S.W.3d at 579 .To determine whether an alleged error in the charge is reversible error, we consider the pleadings of the parties, the evidence presented at trial, and the charge in its entirety. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
American Title Co. of Houston v. Bomac Mortgage Holdings, L.P.
green
1 sentence2007American Title Co. v. BOMAC Mortgage Holdings, L.P., 196 S.W.3d 903 , 907 {Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). ('. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Shields v. State
neutral
1 sentence1931Rep., 13 , 44 S. W., 844 , the charge was condemned, attention being called to the fact that when the accused testifies in his own behalf the giving of the charge is reversible error. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Kutac
green
1 sentence1893In the case of Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway v. Kutac, 76 Texas, 473 , which involved the question of contributory negligence, the’following charge was given: “In passing upon the question of negligence of the parties in charge of defendant’s train, you may consider the place at which the accident occurred, its surroundings, the rate of speed at which said train was then being run, and whether or not the signals required by law to be given were given by the parties in charge of said train.” The court, in commenting upon it, said: “We think this was error, because the effect of it | 1 | 1893–1893 |
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.