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 2003–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lankston v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Rule 33.1(a)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides: “As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context.”- In order to satisfy Rule 33.1’s requirement, “all a party has to do ... is to let the trial judge know what he wants, wh 2009Rule 33.1(a)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides: “As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context.”- In order to satisfy Rule 33.1’s requirement, “all a party has to do ... is to let the trial judge know what he wants, wh | 3 | 3 |
State v. Blancheygreen2 sentences2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant 2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant | 2 | 2 |
DeJesus v. Stategreen2 sentences2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right"); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant 2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant | 2 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right"); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant 2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant | 2 | 2 |
State v. Russellgreen2 sentences2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right"); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant 2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant | 2 | 2 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right"); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant 2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant | 2 | 2 |
Koger v. Stategreen2 sentences2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant 2003He conditioned his statement upon the presence of the prosecutor, showing he knew of his right to remain silent, and was waiving that right”); State v. Russell, 261 N.W.2d 490, 492-93 (Iowa 1978) (statements made in ambulance and three days later in hospital admissible after deputy had Mirandized defendant twice at arrest scene, and different officer reminded defendant of those earlier warnings and defendant stated he remembered and wished to waive them); State v. Brown, 601 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Mo.App.1980) (same officers, same offense, after reminder of rights given three days earlier, defendant | 2 | 2 |
Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Krellgreen1 sentence2014Compare Burkes v. State, 830 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (concluding an arrest occurred when, without any prior questioning, officer shined a flashlight in the appellant’s eyes, ordered him to lie on the *52 ground, and handcuffed him); and Hoag v. State, 728 S.W.2d 875, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (concluding an arrest occurred when suspect removed from the car at gunpoint, taken to the rear of the car, and given Miranda warnings); Carter v. State, 150 S.W.3d 230, 237-38 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (holding investigatory detention when officer testified that he “asked” unhandcuffed | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Compare Burkes v. State, 830 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (concluding an arrest occurred when, without any prior questioning, officer shined a flashlight in the appellant’s eyes, ordered him to lie on the *52 ground, and handcuffed him); and Hoag v. State, 728 S.W.2d 875, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (concluding an arrest occurred when suspect removed from the car at gunpoint, taken to the rear of the car, and given Miranda warnings); Carter v. State, 150 S.W.3d 230, 237-38 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (holding investigatory detention when officer testified that he “asked” unhandcuffed | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Compare Burkes v. State, 830 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (concluding an arrest occurred when, without any prior questioning, officer shined a flashlight in the appellant’s eyes, ordered him to lie on the *52 ground, and handcuffed him); and Hoag v. State, 728 S.W.2d 875, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (concluding an arrest occurred when suspect removed from the car at gunpoint, taken to the rear of the car, and given Miranda warnings); Carter v. State, 150 S.W.3d 230, 237-38 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (holding investigatory detention when officer testified that he “asked” unhandcuffed | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carolee Biddy v. Fred Diamond, Sheriff, Jackson County Jail, and Jack Reed, Warden, Mississippipenitentiary
green
2 sentences2003As the Fifth Circuit phrased the issue in Biddy v. Diamond : The critical legal question is whether the overall activity of the police sufficiently comports with the requirements concerning the Miranda warnings to insulate the conduct and admissions against suppression. 516 F.2d at 122 . 2003As the Fifth Circuit phrased the issue in Biddy v. Diamond: The critical legal question is whether the overall activity of the police sufficiently comports with the requirements concerning the Miranda warnings to insulate the conduct and admissions against suppression. 516 F.2d at 122 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Ex Parte Little
green
2 sentences2009And the State’s stipulation, far from being ambiguous, actually points to the constitutional argument: “We will stipulate nowhere on the videotape of State’s Exhibit No. 2-A is there Mirandized warnings [sic] given to [the appellant], but [the appellant] in the trial of Esteban Perez . . . 35 Lankston v. State, supra, at 909. 36 Id. 37 Ex parte Little, supra, at 66 . 2009And the State’s stipulation, far from being ambiguous, actually points to the constitutional argument: “We will stipulate nowhere on the videotape of State’s Exhibit No. 2-A is there Mirandized warnings [sic] given to [the appellant], but [the appellant] in the trial of Esteban Perez . . . 35 Lankston v. State, supra, at 909. 36 Id. 37 Ex parte Little, supra, at 66 . | 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.