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.
6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haynes v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See id. at 186 n.4. | 1 | 1 |
Vera v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Vera v. State, 868 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1994, no pet.) (abating appeal to conduct a hearing and rejecting argument that record must show the trial court ruled on the request for a hearing); see also Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd) (stating a written order overruling motion for new trial with a request for a hearing was sufficient to preserve complaint as to trial court's denial of a hearing). 1999See Vera v. State, 868 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1994, no pet.) (abating appeal to conduct a hearing and rejecting argument that record must show the trial court ruled on the request for a hearing); see also Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. refd) (stating a written order overruling motion for new trial with a request for a hearing was sufficient to preserve complaint as to trial court’s denial of a hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Simpson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (stating to be timely, a defendant must present a motion for new trial within ten days of filing it). 1999See Simpson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (stating to be timely, a defendant must present a motion for new trial within ten days of filing it). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Vera v. State, 868 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1994, no pet.) (abating appeal to conduct a hearing and rejecting argument that record must show the trial court ruled on the request for a hearing); see also Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd) (stating a written order overruling motion for new trial with a request for a hearing was sufficient to preserve complaint as to trial court's denial of a hearing). 1999See Vera v. State, 868 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1994, no pet.) (abating appeal to conduct a hearing and rejecting argument that record must show the trial court ruled on the request for a hearing); see also Martinez v. State, 846 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. refd) (stating a written order overruling motion for new trial with a request for a hearing was sufficient to preserve complaint as to trial court’s denial of a hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Mobil Chemical Company v. Bellgreen1 sentence1979The Appellant requested an instruction on res ipsa loquitur in the manner suggested by the Supreme Court in Mobil Chemical Company v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245, 256 (Tex. 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. State
green
1 sentence2014In Bennett v. State, the appellant requested an instruction on self defense, stating that, “based upon the totality of all the circumstances and all the witnesses, that it was testified during the trial of this case ... that the justification of self-defense has been raised by the evidence. ...” 235 S.W.3d at 242 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ray v. State
green
1 sentence1991In Ray v. State, the appellant requested an instruction that the jury disregard the intoxilyzer results unless it first found that the appellant had been continuously observed by the person who administered the test. 749 S.W.2d at 943-44 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1981Under the rule announced in Williams v. State, 590 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), the appellant would have been entitled to have the motion to revoke his probation dismissed the moment he requested a hearing pursuant to Section 8(a). 2 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.