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 1977–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Id. 2000Atkins v. State, 990 S.W.2d 763, 767 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999, pet. ref d). | 1 | 2 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Chavezgreen1 sentence2001However, DPS cites this court’s opinion in Texas Department of Public Safety v. Chavez to support its contention that McGlaun was not entitled to a warning that his refusal to submit to an intoxication test would have an impact on his commercial driving privileges. 981 S.W.2d 449, 451 (TexApp. — Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Campos v. Stategreen1 sentence1982In a very recent case, Presiding Judge Onion disposed of a similar question in Campos v. State, 623 S.W.2d 657, 658-659 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), where the accused was charged with the unlawful sale of an alcoholic beverage to an intoxicated person. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kroger Co. v. Keng
green
1 sentence2019See LAB. § 406.033(c)(2); Kroger Co., 23 S.W.3d at 350 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence1994Id. at 462-67 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1977If the fact that an accused person chooses not to take a test can be put in evidence and argued to the jury as evidence of guilt, then the statute places the defendant in a position where willy-nilly, he must risk providing evidence for the prosecution by submitting to a test or certainly provide it by refusing to take one, although his reason for refusal may have no relation to the question of guilt or innocence.” In People v. Hayes, 64 Mich.App. 203 , 235 N.W.2d 182, 184 , the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1975 wrote: “Further, and more importantly, the admission of a defendant’s refusal to s 1977If the fact that an accused person chooses not to take a test can be put in evidence and argued to the jury as evidence of guilt, then the statute places the defendant in a position where willy-nilly, he must risk providing evidence for the prosecution by submitting to a test or certainly provide it by refusing to take one, although his reason for refusal may have no relation to the question of guilt or innocence.” In People v. Hayes, 64 Mich.App. 203 , 235 N.W.2d 182, 184 , the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1975 wrote: “Further, and more importantly, the admission of a defendant’s refusal to s | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.