7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sands v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See id. 2011See generally Sands v. State, 64 S.W.3d 488, 496 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (concluding the absence of a mistake of fact instruction did not deprive appellant of the right to have the jury consider her defense). | 3 | 3 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Green, 899 S.W.2d at 248 (“For the jury not to be given the only law raised by his defense that would have favored defendant’s theory of the case is catastrophic.”); Taiwo v. State, No. 01-07-00487-CR, 2010 WL 2306040 , at * 5-6 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Anderson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 369, 375 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that defendant was harmed where jury charge omitted a mistake-of-fact instruction, depriving him of the right to have the jury consider his only defense). 2011See Green, 899 S.W.2d at 248 (―For the jury not to be given the only law raised by his defense that would have favored defendant’s theory of the case is catastrophic.‖); Taiwo v. State, No. 01-07-00487-CR, 2010 WL 2306040 , at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Anderson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 369, 375 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (holding that defendant was harmed where jury charge omitted a mistake-of-fact instruction, depriving him of the right to have the jury consider his only defense). | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Green, 899 S.W.2d at 248 (“For the jury not to be given the only law raised by his defense that would have favored defendant’s theory of the case is catastrophic.”); Taiwo v. State, No. 01-07-00487-CR, 2010 WL 2306040 , at * 5-6 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Anderson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 369, 375 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that defendant was harmed where jury charge omitted a mistake-of-fact instruction, depriving him of the right to have the jury consider his only defense). 2011See Green, 899 S.W.2d at 248 (―For the jury not to be given the only law raised by his defense that would have favored defendant’s theory of the case is catastrophic.‖); Taiwo v. State, No. 01-07-00487-CR, 2010 WL 2306040 , at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Anderson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 369, 375 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (holding that defendant was harmed where jury charge omitted a mistake-of-fact instruction, depriving him of the right to have the jury consider his only defense). | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Miller v. State , 815 S.W.2d 582 , 585–86 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 297 . 1993See Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 297 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.