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 1979–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sellers v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Sellers v. State , 588 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Tex. Crim. 2005Sellers v. State , 588 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences1986It is true that outcry is "admissible in the State's case in chief as direct evidence of that complaint and this is so without regard to the spontaneity thereof." King v. State, 631 S.W.2d 486, 491 (Tex. Crim.App.1982). 1986It is true that outcry is “admissible in the State’s case in chief as direct evidence of that complaint and this is so without regard to the spontaneity thereof.” King v. State, 631 S.W.2d 486, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tezeno v. State
green
2 sentences1979Tezeno v. State, supra. A spontaneous utterance is an exception to the hearsay rule if: (1) "the statement is the product of an occurrence startling enough to produce a state of nervous excitement which would render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting." (2) "the utterance is made before there is time to contrive and misrepresent, that is, the state of excitement produced by the startling event must still dominate the reflective powers of the mind." (3) "the utterance must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence preceding it." Tezeno v. State, 484 S.W.2d at 378 . 1 C. 1979Tezeno v. State, supra. A spontaneous utterance is an exception to the hearsay rule if: (1) “the statement is the product of an occurrence startling enough to produce a state of nervous excitement which would render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting.” (2) “the utterance is made before there is time to contrive and misrepresent, that is, the state of excitement produced by the startling event must still dominate the reflective powers of the mind.” (3) “the utterance must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence preceding it.” Tezeno v. State, 484 S.W.2d at 378 . 1 C. | 2 | 1979–1986 |
Big MacK Trucking Company, Inc. v. Dickerson
green
1 sentence1982In Big Mack Trucking Co., Inc., v. Dickerson, 497 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.1973) the Supreme Court held that: An agent’s hearsay statements should be received against the principal as vicarious admissions only when the trial judge finds, as a preliminary fact, that the statements were authorized. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.