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 2008–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mercadogreen2 sentences2010We conclude, however, that the three topics outlined in Colyandro’s brief were all fairly raised in his petition, and we will follow the three-point structure of his brief in our analysis of his claims. 40 See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court of appeals that affirmed the trial court’s judgment on one basis was not “compelled to address” an alternate argument for affirming the trial court’s judgment); State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365 , 367 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals did not err in failing to decide an issue that became moot because of its reso 2010We conclude, however, that the three topics outlined in Colyandro’s brief were all fairly raised in his petition, and we will follow the three-point structure of his brief in our analysis of his claims. 40 See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court of appeals that affirmed the trial court’s judgment on one basis was not “compelled to address” an alternate argument for affirming the trial court’s judgment); State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365 , 367 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals did not err in failing to decide an issue that became moot because of its reso | 5 | 5 |
Menefee v. Stategreen2 sentences2010We conclude, however, that the three topics outlined in Colyandro’s brief were all fairly raised in his petition, and we will follow the three-point structure of his brief in our analysis of his claims. 40 See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court of appeals that affirmed the trial court’s judgment on one basis was not “compelled to address” an alternate argument for affirming the trial court’s judgment); State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365 , 367 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals did not err in failing to decide an issue that became moot because of its reso 2010We conclude, however, that the three topics outlined in Colyandro’s brief were all fairly raised in his petition, and we will follow the three-point structure of his brief in our analysis of his claims. 40 See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court of appeals that affirmed the trial court’s judgment on one basis was not “compelled to address” an alternate argument for affirming the trial court’s judgment); State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365 , 367 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals did not err in failing to decide an issue that became moot because of its reso | 5 | 5 |
State v. Plambeckgreen2 sentences2010We conclude, however, that the three topics outlined in Colyandro’s brief were all fairly raised in his petition, and we will follow the three-point structure of his brief in our analysis of his claims. 40 See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court of appeals that affirmed the trial court’s judgment on one basis was not “compelled to address” an alternate argument for affirming the trial court’s judgment); State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365 , 367 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals did not err in failing to decide an issue that became moot because of its reso 2010We conclude, however, that the three topics outlined in Colyandro’s brief were all fairly raised in his petition, and we will follow the three-point structure of his brief in our analysis of his claims. 40 See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court of appeals that affirmed the trial court’s judgment on one basis was not “compelled to address” an alternate argument for affirming the trial court’s judgment); State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365 , 367 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals did not err in failing to decide an issue that became moot because of its reso | 3 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce
red
2 sentences2009Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 661-65 , 110 S.Ct. 1391 , 108 L.Ed.2d 652 (1990). 2009Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 661-65 , 110 S.Ct. 1391 , 108 L.Ed.2d 652 (1990). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
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.