49 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2024 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holley v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2024I honestly—with regards to both of those kids—do not think it makes a difference because as long as the Court puts in parameters that [Anna] has the—all the rights and duties of a parent and that neither the father nor the mother have any rights, that supervision—that visitation be mutually agreed and that [Anna] decide what that visitation looks like 11 In Holley v. Adams, which we address later in this opinion, the Texas Supreme Court identified a list of non-exclusive factors that courts should consider when evaluating whether it is in the child’s best interest to terminate their parents’ r 2024In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d at 807 (quoting Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976)). | 11 | 17 |
Garfias, Christophergreen2 sentences2019“Under this so-called cognate-pleadings approach, double-jeopardy challenges can be made even against offenses that have different statutory elements, if the same facts required to convict are alleged in the indictment.” Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54, 58-59 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014). 5 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 5 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has set forth a list of non-exclusive factors to use in determining whether the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments under separate provisions of the Penal Code for a single course of conduct. 2019“Under this so-called cognate-pleadings approach, double-jeopardy challenges can be made even against offenses that have different statutory elements, if the same facts required to convict are alleged in the indictment.” Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54, 58-59 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014). 5 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 5 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has set forth a list of non-exclusive factors to use in determining whether the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments under separate provisions of the Penal Code for a single course of conduct. | 4 | 8 |
Bigon v. Stategreen2 sentences2015App. App. 1999), the Court of Criminal Appeals set forth a list of non-exclusive factors designed to help courts in the absence of clear guidance from the Legislature: whether offenses are in the same statutory section; whether the offenses are phrased in the alternative; whether the offenses are named similarly; whether the offenses have common punishment ranges; whether the offenses have a common focus; whether the common focus tends to indicate a single instance of conduct; whether the elements that differ between the two offenses can be considered the same under an imputed theory of liabil 2015App. App. 1999), the Court of Criminal Appeals set forth a list of non-exclusive factors designed to help courts in the absence of clear guidance from the Legislature: whether offenses are in the same statutory section; whether the offenses are phrased in the alternative; whether the offenses are named similarly; whether the offenses have common punishment ranges; whether the offenses have a common focus; whether the common focus tends to indicate a single instance of conduct; whether the elements that differ between the two offenses can be considered the same under an imputed theory of liabil | 3 | 4 |
Kelly v. Stategreen2 sentences1997In doing so, we followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and adopted a list of non-exclusive factors for determining whether such testimony is admissible. [1] See id. at 554-57 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). 1997In doing so, we followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and adopted a list of non-exclusive factors for determining whether such testimony is admissible. 1 See id. at 554-57 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). | 2 | 6 |
In the Interest of E.N.C., J.A.C., S.A.L., N.A.G. and C.G.L.green2 sentences2024In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d at 807 (quoting Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976)). 2023In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d at 807 (quoting Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371– 72 (Tex. 1976)). | 2 | 5 |
Theus v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 880 (Tex. Crim. 2024See Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 880 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Ervin v. Stategreen2 sentences2023If the two offenses are not the same under the Blockburger test because each offense “requires proof of a fact that the other does not,” we then turn to a list of non-exclusive factors to determine the ultimate question— “whether the Legislature intended to allow the same conduct to be punished under both of the statutes in question.” Id. (discussing the factors set forth in Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804, 814 (Tex. Crim. 2014GARFIAS—8 conduct when the Legislature intended to authorize only one.28 To facilitate this analysis, in Ervin v. State, we set forth a list of non-exclusive factors designed to help courts in the absence of clear guidance from the Legislature: whether offenses are in the same statutory section; whether the offenses are phrased in the alternative; whether the offenses are named similarly; whether the offenses have common punishment ranges; whether the offenses have a common focus; whether the common focus tends to indicate a single instance of conduct; whether the elements that differ between | 2 | 3 |
Layton v. Stategreen2 sentences2010However, the rate of error is only one of a list of non-exclusive factors that the Court of Criminal Appeals has recently stated “could influence a trial court’s determination of reliability.” Laster v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. Crim. 2006However, the rate of error is only one of a list of non-exclusive factors that the Court of Criminal Appeals has recently stated “ could influence a trial court’s determination of reliability.” Laster v. State , 280 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Wheelergreen2 sentences2023Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d at 323-24 . 2023Id. | 1 | 3 |
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1997In doing so, we followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and adopted a list of non-exclusive factors for determining whether such testimony is admissible. [1] See id. at 554-57 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). 1997In doing so, we followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and adopted a list of non-exclusive factors for determining whether such testimony is admissible. 1 See id. at 554-57 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). | 1 | 3 |
Tate v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Id. at 414 . 2020See Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences1997In doing so, we followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and adopted a list of non-exclusive factors for determining whether such testimony is admissible. 1 See id. at 554-57 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). 1997In doing so, we followed the lead of the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and adopted a list of non-exclusive factors for determining whether such testimony is admissible. 1 See id. at 554-57 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)). | 1 | 2 |
Olivarez v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 , 162 n.12 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).1 Ultimately, however, our inquiry is whether the combined and cumulative force of the evidence and any reasonable inferences rationally justified 1 The Evans court noted these factors might include: (1) the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant’s proximity to and the accessibility of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (6) | 1 | 1 |
Huffman v. Stategreen1 sentence2014App. 1999)). 29 Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 370 (citing Ervin, 991 S.W.2d at 814 ). 30 Gonzales, 304 S.W.3d at 848 (citing Huffman v. State, 267 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2014Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S. Ct. 375, 382 (1972). 2014Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S. Ct. 375, 382 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
In Re JAgreen1 sentence2007See Holley , at 371-72; In re J.A., 109 S.W.3d 869, 876-77 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of S.M., a Child
green
2 sentences2012In the Interest of S.M., 389 S.W.3d 483, 492-94 , 2012 WL 4381372 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012, no pet. h.), citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976). 2012In the Interest of S.M., 389 S.W.3d 483, 492-94 , 2012 WL 4381372 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012, no pet. h.), citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976). | 3 | 2012–2012 |
Evans v. State
green
2 sentences2021Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 , 162 n.12 (Tex. Crim. 2019Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 , 162 n.12 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).1 Ultimately, however, our inquiry is whether the combined and cumulative force of the evidence and any reasonable inferences rationally justified 1 The Evans court noted these factors might include: (1) the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant’s proximity to and the accessibility of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (6) | 2 | 2019–2021 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2019“Under this so-called cognate-pleadings approach, double-jeopardy challenges can be made even against offenses that have different statutory elements, if the same facts required to convict are alleged in the indictment.” Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54, 58-59 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014). 5 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 5 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has set forth a list of non-exclusive factors to use in determining whether the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments under separate provisions of the Penal Code for a single course of conduct. 2019“Under this so-called cognate-pleadings approach, double-jeopardy challenges can be made even against offenses that have different statutory elements, if the same facts required to convict are alleged in the indictment.” Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54, 58-59 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014). 5 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 5 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has set forth a list of non-exclusive factors to use in determining whether the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments under separate provisions of the Penal Code for a single course of conduct. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2006In Gammill we clarified that the list of non-exclusive factors listed in Robinson may not be applicable when assessing certain kinds of expert testimony. 972 S.W.2d at 720 . | 2 | 2006–2015 |
Shelby, John Richard
green
1 sentence2023If the two offenses are not the same under the Blockburger test because each offense “requires proof of a fact that the other does not,” we then turn to a list of non-exclusive factors to determine the ultimate question— “whether the Legislature intended to allow the same conduct to be punished under both of the statutes in question.” Id. (discussing the factors set forth in Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804, 814 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence2021The court of criminal appeals has provided a list of non-exclusive factors that may, either singly or in combination, establish such an affirmative link: (1) the defendant’s presence when a search is conducted; (2) whether the contraband was in plain view; (3) the defendant’s proximity to and the accessibility of the narcotic; (4) whether the defendant was under the influence of narcotics when arrested; (5) whether the defendant possessed other contraband or narcotics when arrested; (6) whether the 3 443 U.S. 307 (1979). –8– defendant made incriminating statements when arrested; (7) whether th | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gonzales v. State
green
2 sentences2014GARFIAS—8 conduct when the Legislature intended to authorize only one.28 To facilitate this analysis, in Ervin v. State, we set forth a list of non-exclusive factors designed to help courts in the absence of clear guidance from the Legislature: whether offenses are in the same statutory section; whether the offenses are phrased in the alternative; whether the offenses are named similarly; whether the offenses have common punishment ranges; whether the offenses have a common focus; whether the common focus tends to indicate a single instance of conduct; whether the elements that differ between 2014App. 1999)). 29 Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 370 (citing Ervin, 991 S.W.2d at 814 ). 30 Gonzales, 304 S.W.3d at 848 (citing Huffman v. State, 267 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho
green
1 sentence2012Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 , 638 n.6 (Tex. 2009) (citing Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557 ). 6 expert‘s experience. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence2010Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 151– 52. ―Because the purpose of the community caretaking exception is to allow an 6 officer to ‗seize‘ and assist an individual whom he reasonably believes is in need of help, the first factor is entitled to the greatest weight.‖ Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277 . ―The greater the nature and level of distress exhibited, the more likely the police involvement will be a reasonable exercise of the community caretaking function.‖ Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Corbin v. State
green
2 sentences2010Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 151– 52. ―Because the purpose of the community caretaking exception is to allow an 6 officer to ‗seize‘ and assist an individual whom he reasonably believes is in need of help, the first factor is entitled to the greatest weight.‖ Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277 . ―The greater the nature and level of distress exhibited, the more likely the police involvement will be a reasonable exercise of the community caretaking function.‖ Id. 2010Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 151– 52. ―Because the purpose of the community caretaking exception is to allow an 6 officer to ‗seize‘ and assist an individual whom he reasonably believes is in need of help, the first factor is entitled to the greatest weight.‖ Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277 . ―The greater the nature and level of distress exhibited, the more likely the police involvement will be a reasonable exercise of the community caretaking function.‖ Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner
green
2 sentences1997Here, the Court applies the Robinson criteria to Merrell Dow's legal sufficiency challenge and concludes that the Havners' expert testimony is no evidence of causation. 953 S.W.2d 706 . 1997Here, the Court applies the Robinson criteria to Mer-rell Dow’s legal sufficiency challenge and concludes that the Havners’ expert testimony is no evidence of causation. 953 S.W.2d 706 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.