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 1952–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Miller v. State, 177 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist. 2005, pet. ref’d). 2008Miller v. State, 177 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist. 2005, pet. ref’d). | 2 | 2 |
Lolmaugh v. Stategreen1 sentence1982Lolmaugh v. State, 514 S.W.2d 758, 759 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vasquez v. State
green
1 sentence2016On October 7, 2015 the parties were ordered to brief the following issues: A. Whether the standard for harm set out in Vasquez v. State, 830 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Mendoza v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 283 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Yohey v. State
green
1 sentence1994Id. at 236 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Rodriquez v. State
neutral
2 sentences1952It was a case of real danger." In Rodriquez v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 108 , 158 S.W. 537 , where the defendant testified that deceased had chased him some distance with a knife, we said that the issue of apparent danger was not raised, but, instead, the danger relied upon by the appellant was immediate, actual and pressing. 1952It was a case of real danger." In Rodriquez v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 108 , 158 S.W. 537 , where the defendant testified that deceased had chased him some distance with a knife, we said that the issue of apparent danger was not raised, but, instead, the danger relied upon by the appellant was immediate, actual and pressing. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Pinson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1952P.C., Sec. 1927, p. 1077, we find the following: "It is not error to restrict the right of self defense to actual danger if the defensive theory is that deceased had his gun or pistol cocked and presented in a firing position, since this, if true, would be an attack. * * * "An advance to close quarters with a drawn knife is an attack, and if this is the defensive theory, it is not error to restrict the right of self defense to the theory that deceased had made an attack instead of charging on the theory that he was about to attack. * * * "It is not error to restrict the right of self defense t 1952P.C., Sec. 1927, p. 1077, we find the following: "It is not error to restrict the right of self defense to actual danger if the defensive theory is that deceased had his gun or pistol cocked and presented in a firing position, since this, if true, would be an attack. * * * "An advance to close quarters with a drawn knife is an attack, and if this is the defensive theory, it is not error to restrict the right of self defense to the theory that deceased had made an attack instead of charging on the theory that he was about to attack. * * * "It is not error to restrict the right of self defense t | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.