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 1990–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Defendant relies on Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), in which the Waco court held that taking appellant’s blood specimen without his permission was an assault under both criminal and civil law. | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Clair argues in his fifth point that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for intoxication assault because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anderson suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the collision and because the results of his blood test were inadmissible because his blood specimen was unlawfully obtained. *100 When we consider a legal sufficiency challenge, we “must consider even improperly admitted evidence.” Hill v. State, 3 S.W.3d 249 , 252 n. 3 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, pet. ref'd) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (T | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2015Sandlin filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood test based on Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). 2015Ruiz filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood test based on Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2013The trial court ruled that “all custodial interrogation subsequent to [Appellant] being placed under arrest, save and except for the DIC warnings and the acknowledgment of the blood tests and the approval of the blood tests from [Appellant], are suppressed.” The trial court stated that evidence that related to the blood test would not be suppressed, and the trial court admitted such evidence. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 In a single appellate issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to suppress evidence of the DIC statutory warnings, o | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
green
2 sentences2005The appropriate standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to the trial court’s determination of historical facts and reviewing de novo the court’s application of the law to those facts. 2 If the trial court did not make explicit findings of historical facts, the appellate court *882 reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, making the assumption that the trial court made explicit findings of fact, supported in the record, that buttressed its conclusion. 3 I 2005The appropriate standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to the trial court’s determination of historical facts and reviewing de novo the court’s application of the law to those facts. 2 If the trial court did not make explicit findings of historical facts, the appellate court *882 reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, making the assumption that the trial court made explicit findings of fact, supported in the record, that buttressed its conclusion. 3 I | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hailey v. State
green
1 sentence2003Defendant relies on Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), in which the Waco court held that taking appellant’s blood specimen without his permission was an assault under both criminal and civil law. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hill v. State
green
1 sentence2000Clair argues in his fifth point that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for intoxication assault because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anderson suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the collision and because the results of his blood test were inadmissible because his blood specimen was unlawfully obtained. *100 When we consider a legal sufficiency challenge, we “must consider even improperly admitted evidence.” Hill v. State, 3 S.W.3d 249 , 252 n. 3 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, pet. ref'd) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 871, 873 (T | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jamail v. State
green
2 sentences1990Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 1986). 1990Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 1986). | 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.