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 1917–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garrett v. Stategreen2 sentences1991These cases] hold that sufficiency of the evidence be measured against the jury charge, which we interpret to mean the entire charge." Garrett, 749 S.W.2d at 802-803 (citations and footnote omitted; emphasis added). 1991These cases] hold that sufficiency of the evidence be measured against the jury charge, which we interpret to mean the entire charge.’’ Garrett, 749 S.W.2d at 802-803 (citations and footnote omitted; emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Houston v. James & Elizabeth Carlson
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 833 . 2015Id. at 833 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Tate v. State
green
2 sentences2001A mere misapplication of the rules of evidence is not constitutional error.... [T]he erroneous exclusion of defensive evidence is not constitutional error if the trial court’s ruling merely offends the rules of evidence.” Id. at 890 . 1 The district court’s conclusion that Magee’s assault of appellant was irrelevant to her duress defense because it took place after the drug transaction for which she was on trial was a misapplication of rule 401. 2001A mere 3 misapplication of the rules of evidence is not constitutional error. . . . [T]he erroneous exclusion of defensive evidence is not constitutional error if the trial court’s ruling merely offends the rules of evidence.” Id. at 890 . 1 The district court’s conclusion that Magee’s assault of appellant was irrelevant to her duress defense because it took place after the drug transaction for which she was on trial was a misapplication of rule 401. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1992In Jones, supra, at 674 the Court specifically quoted from Garrett, supra, and recited that: This would be a misapplication of the rule announced in [Boozer, Ortega and Benson . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Jones v. Springer
green
2 sentences1917We have seen no case by the Supreme Court that questions the correctness of the decision in Conner v. Long, although the case was cited on another point approvingly in Jones v. Springer, 226 U. S. 148 , 83 Sup. Ct. 64, 57 L. 1917We have seen no case by the Supreme Court that questions the correctness of the decision in Conner v. Long, although the case was cited on another point approvingly in Jones v. Springer, 226 U. S. 148 , 83 Sup. Ct. 64, 57 L. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.