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 1 courts 2012–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re WINSHIPgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427, 433 (1979) (unanimous decision of participating Justices) (Fourteenth Amendment requires at least clear and convincing evidence in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the accused in state proceeding against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged). [9] For this reas 2015See, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427, 433 (1979) (unanimous decision of participating Justices) (Fourteenth Amendment requires at least clear and convincing evidence in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the accused in state proceeding against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged). [9] For this reas | 3 | 3 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427, 433 (1979) (unanimous decision of participating Justices) (Fourteenth Amendment requires at least clear and convincing evidence in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the accused in state proceeding against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged). [9] For this reas 2015See, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427, 433 (1979) (unanimous decision of participating Justices) (Fourteenth Amendment requires at least clear and convincing evidence in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the accused in state proceeding against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged). [9] For this reas | 3 | 3 |
Pacheco v. Stategreen1 sentence2018“Searches justified by a valid warrant have a presumption of legality unless the opponent produces evidence rebutting the presumption of proper police conduct,” Pacheco v. State, 347 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.), and “the reasonableness of the manner in which a DWI suspect’s blood is drawn should be assayed on an objective, case-by-case basis in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the draw” regardless of whether “a blood draw is conducted pursuant to a warrant or not.” Johnston, 336 S.W.3d at 661 ; see Gray, 2017 WL 2729672 , at *2. | 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 re John W
green
2 sentences2015As the dissent properly concedes, however, the Court must examine a State's chosen standard to determine whether it satisfies "the constitutional minimum of `fundamental fairness.'" Ibid. 2015As the dissent properly concedes, however, the Court must examine a State's chosen standard to determine whether it satisfies "the constitutional minimum of `fundamental fairness.'" Ibid. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Johnston
green
2 sentences2018“Searches justified by a valid warrant have a presumption of legality unless the opponent produces evidence rebutting the presumption of proper police conduct,” Pacheco v. State, 347 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.), and “the reasonableness of the manner in which a DWI suspect’s blood is drawn should be assayed on an objective, case-by-case basis in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the draw” regardless of whether “a blood draw is conducted pursuant to a warrant or not.” Johnston, 336 S.W.3d at 661 ; see Gray, 2017 WL 2729672 , at *2. 2012Johnston, 336 S.W.3d at 658 . | 2 | 2012–2018 |
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
green
1 sentence2023Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 , 10 443 (Tex. 2009). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.