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 1 courts 1998–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dorough v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Dickerson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd) (holding that the pointing of a gun alone establishes the threat); see also Dorough v. State, 639 S.W.2d 479, 480 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Dickerson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Dickerson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd) (holding that the pointing of a gun alone establishes the threat); see also Dorough v. State, 639 S.W.2d 479, 480 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Long v. State
green
2 sentences2009“In the absence of any nexus between the threat requirement and the conduct requirement, there is a real likelihood that the statute could chill the exercise of protected First Amendment expression.” Id. 2009“The absence of any nexus between the threat requirement in (a)(7)(B) and the conduct requirement in (a)(7)(A) strongly supports viewing the two subsections separately and requiring each to pass constitutional muster on its own.” Id. | 5 | 1998–2019 |
Karenev v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 216–17 (quoting Long, 931 S.W.2d at 293–94). 17 On review, the court of criminal appeals did not reach the question of subsection (a)(7)’s constitutionality but reversed Karenev on forfeiture grounds. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. KEW
green
2 sentences2015Dr. Hawkins’ testified about the threat at the hearing.80 His certificate of medical examination also partly relied on the affidavit to conclude E.S.R. was psychotic and no less restrictive means would ensure the safety of E.S.R. and others.81 The probate court 76 G.H. v. State, Nos. 01-13-00422-CV, 01-13-00423-CV, 2013 WL 5613457 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 10, 2013, no pet.). 77 K.E.W., 315 S.W.3d at 22–23 (citing Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.034 (d) (West 2015)). 78 K.E.W., 315 S.W.3d at 26 . 79 G.H., 2013 WL 5613457 , at *4. 80 E.g., R.R. at 8:1–6. 81 R.R. at 7:22 – 2015Dr. Hawkins’ testified about the threat at the hearing.80 His certificate of medical examination also partly relied on the affidavit to conclude E.S.R. was psychotic and no less restrictive means would ensure the safety of E.S.R. and others.81 The probate court 76 G.H. v. State, Nos. 01-13-00422-CV, 01-13-00423-CV, 2013 WL 5613457 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 10, 2013, no pet.). 77 K.E.W., 315 S.W.3d at 22–23 (citing Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.034 (d) (West 2015)). 78 K.E.W., 315 S.W.3d at 26 . 79 G.H., 2013 WL 5613457 , at *4. 80 E.g., R.R. at 8:1–6. 81 R.R. at 7:22 – | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.