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 3 courts 1990–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perry Homes v. Cullgreen1 sentence2019See Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 598 (Tex. 2008); Smart Call, LLC v. Genio Mobile, Inc., No. 14-13-00223-CV, 2014 WL 3955083 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.). | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Cash Biz, LPgreen1 sentence2019Henry v. Cash Biz, LP, 551 S.W.3d 111, 115 (Tex. 2018); Read v. Sibo, No. 14-18- 00106-CV, 2019 WL 2536573 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 20, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“We review the trial court’s order denying Read’s motion to compel arbitration under an abuse-of-discretion standard, deferring to the trial court on factual determinations that are supported by the evidence and reviewing legal determinations de novo.”). | 1 | 1 |
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.red1 sentence2015Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lueck
green
1 sentence2024Read’s claim falls into the latter category of those that “affirmatively negate jurisdiction.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Grado, Michael Anthony
green
2 sentences2023A waivable-only right cannot be forfeited—it “cannot be surrendered by mere inaction” but is waivable only “if the waiver is affirmatively, plainly, freely, and intelligently made.” Grado, 445 S.W.3d at 739 . “[A] trial judge has an independent duty to implement [a waivable-only right] absent any request unless there is an effective express waiver.” Id. 6 Even if Almanza did apply here, we find no egregious harm because the trial court read the instruction contained in the jury’s verdict forms. 12 One such waivable-only right is the right to a trial free of improper judicial comments. 2023A waivable-only right cannot be forfeited—it “cannot be surrendered by mere inaction” but is waivable only “if the waiver is affirmatively, plainly, freely, and intelligently made.” Grado, 445 S.W.3d at 739 . “[A] trial judge has an independent duty to implement [a waivable-only right] absent any request unless there is an effective express waiver.” Id. 6 Even if Almanza did apply here, we find no egregious harm because the trial court read the instruction contained in the jury’s verdict forms. 12 One such waivable-only right is the right to a trial free of improper judicial comments. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Proenza, Abraham Jacob
green
1 sentence2023Proenza v. State, 541 S.W.3d 786 , 797–801 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Baskin v. State Ex Rel. Short
green
2 sentences1992Id. 232 P. at 389 . 1992Id. 232 P. at 389 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Holland v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1990Id., at -, 110 S.Ct., at 806-809 , 107 L.Ed.2d, at 914-19 . 1990Id., at -, 110 S.Ct., at 806-809 , 107 L.Ed.2d, at 914-19 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.