baseline rule in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2017 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Garcetti v. Ceballosgreen scotus · 2006 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015If the Pickering- 221 Id. at 417. 222 Id. at 417, 418 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 ); see also id. at 418 (observing that such “restrictions . . . must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.”). 223 See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568-75 . 224 See Connick, 461 U.S. at 144-48 . 225 See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421 . 68 Connick-Garcetti line has any bearing here, it would only be to emphasize a baseline rule that public employees possess First Amendment rights just like other citizens do.226 In addition to its misplaced reliance on Garcetti, the State insis 2015If the Pickering- 221 Id. at 417. 222 Id. at 417, 418 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 ); see also id. at 418 (observing that such “restrictions . . . must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.”). 223 See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568-75 . 224 See Connick, 461 U.S. at 144-48 . 225 See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421 . 68 Connick-Garcetti line has any bearing here, it would only be to emphasize a baseline rule that public employees possess First Amendment rights just like other citizens do.226 In addition to its misplaced reliance on Garcetti, the State insis	4	4
Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.green scotus · 1968 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015If the Pickering- 221 Id. at 417. 222 Id. at 417, 418 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 ); see also id. at 418 (observing that such “restrictions . . . must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.”). 223 See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568-75 . 224 See Connick, 461 U.S. at 144-48 . 225 See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421 . 68 Connick-Garcetti line has any bearing here, it would only be to emphasize a baseline rule that public employees possess First Amendment rights just like other citizens do.226 In addition to its misplaced reliance on Garcetti, the State insis 2015If the Pickering- 221 Id. at 417. 222 Id. at 417, 418 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 ); see also id. at 418 (observing that such “restrictions . . . must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.”). 223 See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568-75 . 224 See Connick, 461 U.S. at 144-48 . 225 See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421 . 68 Connick-Garcetti line has any bearing here, it would only be to emphasize a baseline rule that public employees possess First Amendment rights just like other citizens do.226 In addition to its misplaced reliance on Garcetti, the State insis	4	4
Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myersgreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015If the Pickering- 221 Id. at 417. 222 Id. at 417, 418 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 ); see also id. at 418 (observing that such “restrictions . . . must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.”). 223 See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568-75 . 224 See Connick, 461 U.S. at 144-48 . 225 See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421 . 68 Connick-Garcetti line has any bearing here, it would only be to emphasize a baseline rule that public employees possess First Amendment rights just like other citizens do.226 In addition to its misplaced reliance on Garcetti, the State insis 2015If the Pickering- 221 Id. at 417. 222 Id. at 417, 418 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 ); see also id. at 418 (observing that such “restrictions . . . must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.”). 223 See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568-75 . 224 See Connick, 461 U.S. at 144-48 . 225 See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421 . 68 Connick-Garcetti line has any bearing here, it would only be to emphasize a baseline rule that public employees possess First Amendment rights just like other citizens do.226 In addition to its misplaced reliance on Garcetti, the State insis	4	4
Hood v. Stategreen miss · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20	1	1
State v. Smithgreen neb · 2016 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20	1	1
State v. Lopezgreen nh · 2011 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Commonwealth v. Sullivan green massappct · 2012 2 sentences 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20	1	2017–2017
State v. Dubois green sd · 2008 1 sentence 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20	1	2017–2017
United States v. Dost green casd · 1986 1 sentence 2017Dost , 636 F.Supp. at 832 .	1	2017–2017
State v. Bagnes green utah · 2014 1 sentence 2017Ct. App. 2001) ("[B]ecause the [ Dost ] factors do provide some specific, workable criteria to use in our analysis, we consider them together with all the evidence before us."); see also State v. Smith , 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 , 193 (2016) (utilizing the Dost factors); State v. Bagnes , 322 P.3d 719 , 727-28 (Utah 2014) (reversing conviction after applying Dost ); State v. Lopez , 162 N.H. 153 , 27 A.3d 713 , 716 (2011) (applying the Dost factors); Hood v. State , 17 So.3d 548 , 555 (Miss. 2009) ("Today, we adopt the above-enumerated Dost factors"); State v. Dubois , 746 N.W.2d 197 , 20	1	2017–2017
Posey v. State green texcrimapp · 1998 1 sentence 2013Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 62 n.12.	1	2013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 1.07 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 15.03 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 25.05 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 36.02 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 36.03 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 36.04 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 36.05 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 36.06 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 38.15 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 39.02 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 39.03 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 6.02 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 29 (1983–2026) WA 9 (2012–2024) MA 7 (1999–2024) TX 6 (2013–2017) LA 6 (2009–2023) CO 4 (2003–2026) IL 4 (2012–2021) DE 3 (2015–2022) PA 3 (1998–2017) NJ 3 (2002–2019) CT 3 (2014–2018) IN 3 (2002–2024) IA 2 (2018–2019) MO 2 (2009–2021) OR 2 (2010–2016) DC 2 (2012–2022) GA 2 (2005–2007) MD 2 (2022–2022) OH 2 (2012–2024) ID 2 (2000–2003) NH 2 (2008–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check