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.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alex Erazo v. Luis a Sanchez, Chief Medical Director for the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences, and Kim Ogg, District Attorney for Harris County, Texas (Formally Devon Anderson)green1 sentence2025See Erazo, 580 S.W.3d at 772 (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying inmate’s motion to appoint counsel based on lack of exceptional circumstances when inmate was incarcerated, could not read or write English, was uneducated and legally unsophisticated); see also Fairfax, 2010 WL 890161 , at *1 (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion when inmate complained regarding difficulties of conducting litigation from prison, inability to hire expert, lack of legal training, and complex nature of medical malpractice case); Wion v. Thayler, No. 10-09-00369-CV, 2010 WL 46444 | 1 | 1 |
Shah v. 20 E. 64th St., LLCgreen1 sentence2022Dec. 15, 2015) (opinion and order) (following and applying Luna test); Shah v. 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 154 N.Y.S.3d 6, 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021) (holding that indemnity provision included interparty fee claim because of highly inclusive language in provision and no other provision of agreement would be rendered meaningless if provision read to include interparty claims). | 1 | 1 |
Ruiz, Lauro Eduardogreen1 sentence2021A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law “We review a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard of review.” State v. Ruiz, 577 S.W.3d 543, 545 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malonegreen1 sentence2015Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See also Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 55 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (applying Strickland standard to claims of ineffective assistance under the Texas Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jimenezgreen1 sentence2013See State v. Jimenez, 987 S.W.2d 886, 888-89 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Luna v. State
green
1 sentence2025See id. at 748-49; Luna, 493 S.W.2d at 855 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Poly-America, L.P.
green
2 sentences2014P 60,669 , 28 IER Cases 140 , 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1237 2007 ) (holding discovery restrictions that prohibited requests of Luna's claim they would be unenforceable. 2014P 60,669 , 28 IER Cases 140 , 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1237 2007 ) (holding discovery restrictions that prohibited requests of Luna's claim they would be unenforceable. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.
green
2 sentences2009Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 ; Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 409 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . 2009Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 ; Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 409 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
green
2 sentences2009Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 ; Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 409 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . 2009Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 ; Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 409 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.