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 1990–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Stateyellow2 sentences2011Although it addressed the issue in the context of a defendant's affirmative defense, the court stated that its conclusion was "dictated by stare decisis" because it had, seventeen years prior to issuing its opinion in Clewis, recognized that it had "no jurisdiction" to consider, as requested by a defendant, whether "the jury's decision regarding his claim of incompetency was `so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong [and] unjust.'" Id. at 155 (citing White v. State, 591 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex.Crim.App.1979)). 2011Although it addressed the issue in the context of a defendant’s affirmative defense, the court stated that its conclusion was “dictated by stare decisis” because it had, seventeen years prior to issuing its opinion in Clewis , recognized that it had “no jurisdiction” to consider, as requested by a defendant, whether “the jury’s decision regarding his claim of incompetency was ‘so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong [and] unjust.’ ” Id. at 155 (citing White v. State, 591 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex.Crim.App.1979)). | 2 | 3 |
Matter of Humphreysgreen2 sentences2010See Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1986); see also In re Humphreys, 880 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex. 1994) (“[Q]uestions of law are always subject to de novo review.”). 2010See Escobar v. Escobar , 711 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1986); see also In re Humphreys , 880 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex. 1994) ("[Q]uestions of law are always subject to de novo review."). | 2 | 2 |
Escobar v. Escobargreen2 sentences2010See Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1986); see also In re Humphreys, 880 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex. 1994) (“[Q]uestions of law are always subject to de novo review.”). 2010See Escobar v. Escobar , 711 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1986); see also In re Humphreys , 880 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex. 1994) ("[Q]uestions of law are always subject to de novo review."). | 2 | 2 |
Perry Homes v. Cullgreen2 sentences2019Id., 258 S.W.3d at 596, n.89 (de novo review encompasses the record before the trial court); see also Mickens v. Longhorn DFW Moving, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 875, 879 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (“When reviewing error under a de novo standard, we conduct an independent analysis of the record to arrive at our own legal conclusion.”). 2019Id., 258 S.W.3d at 596, n.89 (de novo review encompasses the record before the trial court); see also Mickens v. Longhorn DFW Moving, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 875, 879 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (“When reviewing error under a de novo standard, we conduct an independent analysis of the record to arrive at our own legal conclusion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mickens v. Longhorn DFW Moving, Inc.green1 sentence2019Id., 258 S.W.3d at 596, n.89 (de novo review encompasses the record before the trial court); see also Mickens v. Longhorn DFW Moving, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 875, 879 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (“When reviewing error under a de novo standard, we conduct an independent analysis of the record to arrive at our own legal conclusion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshallgreen1 sentence1992Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.