47 Texas opinions name it 5 courts 1960–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Hall, 225 S.W.3d at 535 ; see also Tex. Transp. 2021See Hall, 225 S.W.3d at 535 ; see also Tex. Transp. | 8 | 13 |
Holden v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 763 (Tex. Crim. 2009See Holden v. State , 201 S.W.3d 761, 763 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2009We review Hall’s claim under the two-pronged test set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. 2009We review Hall's claim under the two-pronged test set out in Almanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Soliz, Jeffery Jaygreen2 sentences2016See Soliz v. State, 353 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (“To the extent that a continuous-sexual-abuse indictment alleges certain specific offenses, an ‘offense listed under Subsection (c)’ [of the continuous-sexual-abuse statute] will always meet the first step of the Hall analysis.”). 2016See Soliz v. State, 353 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (“To the extent that a continuous-sexual-abuse indictment alleges certain specific offenses, an ‘offense listed under Subsection (c)’ [of the continuous-sexual-abuse statute] will always meet the first step of the Hall analysis.”). | 2 | 2 |
Hobbs v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Lempar v. State, 191 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, pet. refd) (holding that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was determinable from the record and therefore did not entitle the defendant to a hearing on his motion for new trial to determine whether the ruling was proper); see also Hobbs, 298 S.W.3d at 199 . 2015The incorrectness of Hall’s factual assertion was determinable from the record and therefore did not entitle him to a hearing.3 Id. | 2 | 2 |
Wallace v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Wallace v. State, 106 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. Grim. 2015Wallace v. State, 106 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Lempar v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Lempar v. State, 191 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, pet. refd) (holding that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was determinable from the record and therefore did not entitle the defendant to a hearing on his motion for new trial to determine whether the ruling was proper); see also Hobbs, 298 S.W.3d at 199 . 2015See Lempar v. State, 191 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. ref'd) (holding that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling was determinable from the record and therefore did not entitle the defendant to a hearing on his motion for new trial to determine whether the ruling was proper); see also Hobbs, 298 S.W.3d at 199 . | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Waltongreen2 sentences2009See 225 S.W.3d at 535-36 ; see also Neighbors v. State , No. 2-07-176-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4467 , at *14 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 12, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that robbery is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery) (citing Ex parte Walton , 626 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tex. Crim. 2009See 225 S.W.3d at 535-36 ; see also Neighbors v. State , No. 2-07-176-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4467 , at *14 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 12, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that robbery is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery) (citing Ex parte Walton , 626 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houstongreen2 sentences2009See Weik v. Second Baptist Church , 988 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) ("These actions show an intentional course of conduct on the part of appellant to delay the filing of his appeal bond. 2009See Weik v. Second Baptist Church, 3 988 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (“These actions show an intentional course of conduct on the part of appellant to delay the filing of his appeal bond. | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2005See Walker, 111 S.W.3d at 62 . 2005See Walker , 111 S.W.3d at 62 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re Pannellgreen1 sentence2026See id. | 1 | 1 |
Ette, Eddie Offionggreen1 sentence2026See Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Price, Jimmy Dongreen2 sentences2024See Price v. State, 434 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex. Crim. 2024See Price v. State, 434 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Menefield v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See id. | 1 | 1 |
Peavey v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Code Ann. § 545.421 (a). 6 In Peavey v. State, 248 S.W.3d 455 , 468–69 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d), the Austin Court of Appeals, after applying the Hall analysis, determined that fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer under section 545.421 of the Transportation Code is not a lesser-included offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle under section 38.04 of the Penal Code, because section 38.04 does not require that an officer signal to the defendant to stop or that the officer be in a vehicle when the violation occurs. 2021Code Ann. § 545.421 (a). 6 In Peavey v. State, 248 S.W.3d 455 , 468–69 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d), the Austin Court of Appeals, after applying the Hall analysis, determined that fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer under section 545.421 of the Transportation Code is not a lesser-included offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle under section 38.04 of the Penal Code, because section 38.04 does not require that an officer signal to the defendant to stop or that the officer be in a vehicle when the violation occurs. | 1 | 1 |
State of Texas v. Ortiz, Octaviogreen1 sentence2021See Ortiz, 382 S.W.3d at 372 . | 1 | 1 |
Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doegreen1 sentence2021That is, Hall “did not assign error to each basis on which [Houstonian] moved for summary judgment.” Star- Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Cavazos, Abrahamgreen2 sentences2020See Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377, 383 (Tex. Crim. 2020See Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377, 383 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Bell v. State, 693 S.W.2d 434, 439 (Tex. Crim. 2019See Bell v. State, 693 S.W.2d 434, 439 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Amaro v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Amaro v. State, 287 S.W.3d 825 , 830–31 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, pet. ref’d) (holding that appellant was not entitled to lesser-included instruction on deadly conduct because second step of Hall analysis was not met). 2018See Amaro v. State, 287 S.W.3d 825 , 830–31 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, pet. ref’d) (holding that appellant was not entitled to lesser-included instruction on deadly conduct because second step of Hall analysis was not met). | 1 | 1 |
in Re Mark Fisher and Reece Boudreauxgreen2 sentences2017The Texas Supreme Court subsequently addressed Hall’s analysis in In re Fisher, 433 S.W.3d 523, 527 (Tex. 2014). 2017Fisher also involved a limited partner seeking to recover damages individually in connection with a failed business venture. 433 S.W.3d at 525-27 . | 1 | 1 |
Marshall Hodges D/B/A Guaranteed Printing Supply and Rhon Rommer v. Jitendra Rajpalgreen1 sentence2017In Hodges v. Rajpal, the Dallas Court of Appeals revisited Hall’s analysis in light of the supreme court’s decision in Fisher, 459 S.W.3d 237, 249 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2015, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| G & H TOWING CO. v. Mageegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cynthia Ann Hudson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fuentes v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Enriquez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re LMgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Richard v. Cornerstone Constructors, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wood v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| O'QUINN v. Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pitonyak v. State
green
2 sentences2009We overrule Hall’s motion for rehearing and the State’s “Supplemental Prayer for Relief on Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.” In Pitonyak v. State, 253 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d), this Court affirmed the conviction of Colton Pitonyak, an intermittent University of Texas student, for the murder of twenty-one year-old Jennifer Cave, whose dismembered body was found in Pitonyak’s West Campus-area condominium. 2009We overrule Hall's motion for rehearing and the State's "Supplemental Prayer for Relief on Appellant's Motion for Rehearing." In Pitonyak v. State , 253 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.--Austin 2008, pet. ref'd), this Court affirmed the conviction of Colton Pitonyak, an intermittent University of Texas student, for the murder of twenty-one year-old Jennifer Cave, whose dismembered body was found in Pitonyak's West Campus-area condominium. | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Grady v. Corbin
red
2 sentences2009We decline to address this question as well because we granted review solely to determine the Hall issue in this case, i.e., whether [t]he court of appeals erred in holding that Mr. Watson's punishment for the offense of failure to yield the right-of-way did not bar his prosecution for intoxication assault because the indictment charging the intoxication assault included, as one of its elements, the offense of failure to yield the right-of-way, under this Court's decision in Hall v. State . [5] We note that, as the just-quoted language itself shows, appellant's approach in fact seems to be mor 2009We decline to address this question as well because we granted review solely to determine the Hall issue in this case, i.e., whether [t]he court of appeals erred in holding that Mr. Watson's punishment for the offense of failure to yield the right-of-way did not bar his prosecution for intoxication assault because the indictment charging the intoxication assault included, as one of its elements, the offense of failure to yield the right-of-way, under this Court's decision in Hall v. State . [5] We note that, as the just-quoted language itself shows, appellant's approach in fact seems to be mor | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 741 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dallas Central Appraisal District v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2015CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF•..•.......................... 14 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ..•.......•..•........ ......••...... l6 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Hegedorn, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996 , 1001-02 {1950) .. ............. 8 Appraisal Dist. v. Cunningham, 161 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)6 Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) .................... ................................ 8 Browning v. Prostock, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) ............................................. 8,9 Caldwellv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Baker v. Goldsmith
green
1 sentence2015CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF•..•.......................... 14 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ..•.......•..•........ ......••...... l6 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Hegedorn, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996 , 1001-02 {1950) .. ............. 8 Appraisal Dist. v. Cunningham, 161 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)6 Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) .................... ................................ 8 Browning v. Prostock, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) ............................................. 8,9 Caldwellv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Alexander v. Hagedorn
green
2 sentences2015CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF•..•.......................... 14 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ..•.......•..•........ ......••...... l6 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Hegedorn, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996 , 1001-02 {1950) .. ............. 8 Appraisal Dist. v. Cunningham, 161 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)6 Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) .................... ................................ 8 Browning v. Prostock, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) ............................................. 8,9 Caldwellv. 2015CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF•..•.......................... 14 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ..•.......•..•........ ......••...... l6 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Hegedorn, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996 , 1001-02 {1950) .. ............. 8 Appraisal Dist. v. Cunningham, 161 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)6 Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) .................... ................................ 8 Browning v. Prostock, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) ............................................. 8,9 Caldwellv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Peter C. Browning v. Jeff P. Prostok
green
1 sentence2015CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF•..•.......................... 14 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ..•.......•..•........ ......••...... l6 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Hegedorn, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996 , 1001-02 {1950) .. ............. 8 Appraisal Dist. v. Cunningham, 161 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)6 Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) .................... ................................ 8 Browning v. Prostock, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) ............................................. 8,9 Caldwellv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Price, Eric Ray
green
2 sentences2015Under the first part of the Hall analysis, misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury by striking with a closed fist is not a lesser included offense of assault—family violence by choking as charged in the indictment because the required injury is “normal breathing or circulation of the blood has been impeded.” Price, 457 S.W.3d at 443 . 2015Under the first part of the Hall analysis, misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury by striking with a closed fist is not a lesser included offense of assault—family violence by choking as charged in the indictment because the required injury is “normal breathing or circulation of the blood has been impeded.” Price, 457 S.W.3d at 443 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Dixon green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Hicks v. Matthews green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.