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 2008–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Linton v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The opinion in Linton approvingly quotes from a Seventh Circuit case for the proposition that due process is denied when “a credible claim of incapacity to understand due to language difficulty is made and the district court fails to review the evidence and make appropriate findings of fact.”4 275 S.W.3d at 505 (quoting United States v. Cirrincione, 780 F.2d 620, 634 (7th Cir. 1985)). 3 At trial, the forensic technical supervisor for the Intoxilyzer machine used in this case testified that the alcohol concentration in Tolentino’s breath sample was .203 grams per 210 liters, more than twice the 2024The Court of Criminal Appeals has considered that a defendant is denied due process when (1) what is told him is incomprehensible; (2) the accuracy and scope of a translation at a hearing or trial is subject to grave doubt; (3) the nature of the proceeding is not explained to him in a manner designed to insure his full comprehension; or (4) a credible claim of incapacity to understand due to language difficulty is made and the district court fails to review the evidence and make appropriate findings of fact. 5 Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 505 (internal quotation omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Kelly v. Stategreen2 sentences2008App. 1999), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals tailored a translation of the test in Kelly v. State , 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. 2008App. 1999), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals tailored a translation of the test in Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
United States of America, Plaintif-Appellee v. Biagio Cirrincione and Tom Cirrincionegreen1 sentence2025The opinion in Linton approvingly quotes from a Seventh Circuit case for the proposition that due process is denied when “a credible claim of incapacity to understand due to language difficulty is made and the district court fails to review the evidence and make appropriate findings of fact.”4 275 S.W.3d at 505 (quoting United States v. Cirrincione, 780 F.2d 620, 634 (7th Cir. 1985)). 3 At trial, the forensic technical supervisor for the Intoxilyzer machine used in this case testified that the alcohol concentration in Tolentino’s breath sample was .203 grams per 210 liters, more than twice the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Madden v. State
green
1 sentence2017“If there is no disputed factual issue, the legality of the conduct is determined by the trial judge alone, as a question of law.” Madden, 242 S.W.3d at 510 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.