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 2003–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garza v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Garza v. State , 126 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). 2011Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). | 2 | 2 |
Crane v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Crane v. State , 786 S.W.2d 338, 345 (Tex. Crim. 2003Crane v. State, 786 S.W.2d 338, 345 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Resendez v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex.Crim.App.2009); State v. Mercado, 972 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mercadogreen1 sentence2016See Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex.Crim.App.2009); State v. Mercado, 972 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Castillo v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Castillo v. State, 79 S.W.3d 817, 827-28 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd), c ert. denied, 538 U.S. 924 , 123 S.Ct. 1593 , 155 L.Ed.2d 315 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Metzger v. Sebekgreen1 sentence2007See In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding) (“Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.”); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (court not required to consider motion not called to its attention). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Davidsongreen1 sentence2007See In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding) (“Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.”); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (court not required to consider motion not called to its attention). | 1 | 1 |
Purtell v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Castillo v. State, 79 S.W.3d 817, 827-28 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd), c ert. denied, 538 U.S. 924 , 123 S.Ct. 1593 , 155 L.Ed.2d 315 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Castillo v. Texas
neutral
2 sentences2007Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Castillo v. State, 79 S.W.3d 817, 827-28 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd), c ert. denied, 538 U.S. 924 , 123 S.Ct. 1593 , 155 L.Ed.2d 315 (2003). 2007Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Castillo v. State, 79 S.W.3d 817, 827-28 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd), c ert. denied, 538 U.S. 924 , 123 S.Ct. 1593 , 155 L.Ed.2d 315 (2003). | 1 | 2007–2007 |