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 1970–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowie Memorial Hospital v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2003See Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 53 . 2003See Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 53 . | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Webbgreen1 sentence2014Maxwell’s result decided the issue before us today: substantive status-based or individualized-sentencing claims under the Eighth Amendment and embraced by Miller are 25 Ex parte Webb, 270 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Edgar v. Plummergreen1 sentence1994See Edgar, 845 S.W.2d at 454 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maxwell, Ex Parte Terrell
green
1 sentence2015And in Maxwell, “the majority granted Maxwell habeas corpus relief by vacating his life-without-parole sentence [for a crime he committed as a juvenile] and remanding the case for further sentencing proceedings permitting the factfinder to determine whether Maxwell's sentence should be assessed at life with or without parole.” Id. at 261 (citing Maxwell, 424 S.W.3d at 76 ). “[B]y reaching the merits of Maxwell's claim [that was not raised in the trial court], the Maxwell majority held, perforce, that Maxwell's Miller claim was not subject to procedural default.” Id. at 262 (interpreting its Ma | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Garza v. State
green
1 sentence2015And in Maxwell, “the majority granted Maxwell habeas corpus relief by vacating his life-without-parole sentence [for a crime he committed as a juvenile] and remanding the case for further sentencing proceedings permitting the factfinder to determine whether Maxwell's sentence should be assessed at life with or without parole.” Id. at 261 (citing Maxwell, 424 S.W.3d at 76 ). “[B]y reaching the merits of Maxwell's claim [that was not raised in the trial court], the Maxwell majority held, perforce, that Maxwell's Miller claim was not subject to procedural default.” Id. at 262 (interpreting its Ma | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Morales v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
First Nat. Bank of Amarillo v. Rush
neutral
2 sentences1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 .” As stated in Maxwell’s brief: “Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W.2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct.1968): “ ‘To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well as the 1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 ." *440 As stated in Maxwell's brief: "Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W. 2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct. 1968): "`To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Ryan v. Kent
green
2 sentences1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 .” As stated in Maxwell’s brief: “Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W.2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct.1968): “ ‘To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well as the 1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 ." *440 As stated in Maxwell's brief: "Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W. 2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct. 1968): "`To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros.
green
2 sentences1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 .” As stated in Maxwell’s brief: “Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W.2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct.1968): “ ‘To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well as the 1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 ." *440 As stated in Maxwell's brief: "Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W. 2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct. 1968): "`To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Gray v. Wingo
green
2 sentences1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 .” As stated in Maxwell’s brief: “Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W.2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct.1968): “ ‘To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well as the 1970First National Bank of Amarillo v. Rush, Tex.Com.App., 210 S.W. 521 ; Ryan v. Kent, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1007 ." *440 As stated in Maxwell's brief: "Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Ponsford Bros., [Tex.Civ.App.,] 414 S.W. 2d 16 , affirmed, Trinity Universal v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 517 (Sup.Ct. 1968): "`To sum up, it has long been the law that the basic rule in construing a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the words used in the contract, construed in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, as well | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.