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 1983–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 1995) (citing Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, 753 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 1995) (citing Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, 753 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Castillo v. Stategreen2 sentences2023When the State makes such a challenge for cause, it is the State’s burden to establish that the venireperson “is in fact incapable of, or at least substantially impaired from, following the law.” Castillo v. State, 913 S.W.2d 529, 534 (Tex. Crim. 2015When the State makes such a challenge for cause, it is the State’s burden to establish that the venireperson “is in fact incapable of, or at least substantially impaired from, following the law.” Castillo v. State, 913 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strunk v. United States
green
2 sentences1999Strunk, 412 U.S. at 439 , 93 S.Ct. 2260 . 1999Strunk, 412 U.S. at 439 , 93 S.Ct. 2260 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Perillo v. State
green
2 sentences1989Perillo, 656 S.W.2d at 80-81 . 1989Perillo, 656 S.W.2d at 80-81 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1987In determining whether such error was harmful the Court held that the following test be applied, Whether, at the time the State makes its challenge for cause, or at the time the trial judge grants or sustains the State’s challenge for cause, the prospective juror has been shown to be absolutely disqualified under Adams v. Texas, [ 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)] and Witherspoon v. Illinois, [ 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968)], ...? 1987In determining whether such error was harmful the Court held that the following test be applied, Whether, at the time the State makes its challenge for cause, or at the time the trial judge grants or sustains the State’s challenge for cause, the prospective juror has been shown to be absolutely disqualified under Adams v. Texas, [ 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)] and Witherspoon v. Illinois, [ 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968)], ...? | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Adams v. Texas
green
2 sentences1987In determining whether such error was harmful the Court held that the following test be applied, Whether, at the time the State makes its challenge for cause, or at the time the trial judge grants or sustains the State’s challenge for cause, the prospective juror has been shown to be absolutely disqualified under Adams v. Texas, [ 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)] and Witherspoon v. Illinois, [ 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968)], ...? 1987In determining whether such error was harmful the Court held that the following test be applied, Whether, at the time the State makes its challenge for cause, or at the time the trial judge grants or sustains the State’s challenge for cause, the prospective juror has been shown to be absolutely disqualified under Adams v. Texas, [ 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)] and Witherspoon v. Illinois, [ 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968)], ...? | 1 | 1987–1987 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence1983White, supra; Vanderbilt, supra. Whether such error may rise to the level of reversible error depends upon the answer to the following question: *81 Whether, at the time the State makes its challenge for cause, or at the time the trial judge grants or sustains the State’s challenge for cause, the prospective juror has been shown to be absolutely disqualified under Adams v. Texas, supra, and Wither-spoon v. Illinois, supra, i.e., has the juror, through questioning by the prosecuting attorney or the trial court, made it absolutely and unmistakably clear that he would automatically vote against t | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Vanderbilt v. State
green
1 sentence1983White, supra; Vanderbilt, supra. Whether such error may rise to the level of reversible error depends upon the answer to the following question: *81 Whether, at the time the State makes its challenge for cause, or at the time the trial judge grants or sustains the State’s challenge for cause, the prospective juror has been shown to be absolutely disqualified under Adams v. Texas, supra, and Wither-spoon v. Illinois, supra, i.e., has the juror, through questioning by the prosecuting attorney or the trial court, made it absolutely and unmistakably clear that he would automatically vote against t | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.