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 1967–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stevens v. National Education Centers, Inc.green2 sentences2009Ctrs, Inc. , 11 S.W.3d 185, 186 (Tex. 2000))) ; see also Lentino v. Cullen Ctr. 2009Ctrs., Inc., 11 S.W.3d 185, 186 (Tex.2000))); see also Lentino v. Cullen Ctr. | 3 | 3 |
Molina v. Mooregreen2 sentences2009Molina v. Moore , 33 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2000, no pet.) ("Should we determine, in considering appellant's issue on this appeal, that the record contains error warranting reversal and that remand for a new trial would be the appropriate remedy, we are not authorized to remand for a new trial because appellant has requested this court only to reverse and render judgment in her favor." (citing Stevens v. Nat'l Educ. 2009Molina v. Moore, 33 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (“Should we determine, in considering appellant’s issue on this appeal, that the record contains error warranting reversal and that remand for a new trial would be the appropriate remedy, we are not authorized to remand for a new trial because appellant has requested this court only to reverse and render judgment in her favor.” (citing Stevens v. Nat’l Educ. | 2 | 2 |
Florida v. Nixongreen1 sentence2018See id. at __ (“[W]hen counsel confers with the defendant and the defendant remains silent, neither approving nor protesting counsel’s proposed concession strategy, ‘no blanket rule demands the defendant’s explicit consent’ to implementation of that strategy.” (citing Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 181 (2004)). | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2018See id. at __ (“[W]hen counsel confers with the defendant and the defendant remains silent, neither approving nor protesting counsel’s proposed concession strategy, ‘no blanket rule demands the defendant’s explicit consent’ to implementation of that strategy.” (citing Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 181 (2004)). | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Texas Instruments, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Carlton v. Houston Cmty. Coll., No. 01-11-00249-CV, 2012 WL 3628890 , at *14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 23, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing McCoy v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.)). 3 Evidence of the alleged disparate treatment comprises conclusory statements in the affidavits of Gonzales and a co-worker that Gonzales was “singled out” but does not include any evidence from which a factfinder could determine that the circumstances and misconduct of other named employees were “nearly identical” to Gonzales. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See, V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 7.02. [10] We note that the record contains a defense motion for additional peremptories, but this motion, dated July 9, 1981, was from appellant's first trial. [11] Author's emphasis unless otherwise noted. [12] We note that appellant's trial took place in 1982, two years prior to our decision in Green, supra . [13] See our discussion of appellant's fifth, sixth and seventh points of error, post, wherein we address the sufficiency of the evidence to support the three special issues. [14] Appellant, after "recognizing", in a footnote, this Court's prohibition aga | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirkland v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1967Kirkland v. Texas and Pacific Ry. *474 Co., 372 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.Civ.App. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.