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 1 courts 2014–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Taylor v. State, No. 11-12- 00317-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 , at *21 (Tex. App.—Eastland Nov. 26, 2024, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (citing to Wood v. State, 271 S.W.3d 329, 334 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d)). 2015Wood v. State, 271 S.W.3d 329, 334 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref d); see also Fitzgerald v. State, 782 S.W.2d 876, 885 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Fitzgerald v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Wood v. State, 271 S.W.3d 329, 334 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref d); see also Fitzgerald v. State, 782 S.W.2d 876, 885 (Tex. Crim. 2014Wood v. State, 271 S.W.3d 329, 334 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); see also Fitzgerald v. State, 782 S.W.2d 876, 885 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Estepgreen1 sentence2014Wood v. State, 271 S.W.3d 329, 334 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); see also Fitzgerald v. State, 782 5 S.W.2d 876, 885 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re JFC
green
2 sentences2022In conducting a factual sufficiency review, we determine whether the evidence admitted at trial allowed a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that the facts the Department needed to prove to prevail are true.24 In our review, we credit all evidence favoring the Department on the claims on which it prevailed at trial if the evidence that supports that claim is clear and convincing.25 But we also consider any evidence admitted during the trial that is contrary to the factfinder’s verdict to decide whether the factfinder, in face of the conflicting evidence, could have resol 2022In conducting a factual sufficiency review, we determine whether the evidence admitted at trial allowed a reasonable factfinder to form a firm belief or conviction that the facts the Department needed to prove to prevail are true.24 In our review, we credit all evidence favoring the Department on the claims on which it prevailed at trial if the evidence that supports that claim is clear and convincing.25 But we also consider any evidence admitted during the trial that is contrary to the factfinder’s verdict to decide whether the factfinder, in face of the conflicting evidence, could have resol | 3 | 2022–2022 |
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.