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 1981–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bray v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Bray v. State, 478 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972). 1989See Bray v. State, 478 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). | 2 | 2 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Eckert, supra, at 364 ; Broussard v. State, 505 S.W.2d 282, 285 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Howard v. State, 484 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). 1981Broussard, supra; Thompson v. State, 486 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.Cr.App.); Howard v. State, 484 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 1 | 2 |
Broussard v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Eckert, supra, at 364 ; Broussard v. State, 505 S.W.2d 282, 285 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Howard v. State, 484 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). 1981Broussard, supra; Thompson v. State, 486 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.Cr.App.); Howard v. State, 484 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 1 | 2 |
Dow Chemical Co. v. Francisgreen1 sentence2015See Francis, 46 S.W.3d at 241 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Young v. State
green
2 sentences2010In Young, the court of criminal appeals reviewed the purpose behind a trial court’s corrective instruction: “[A]n instruction to disregard attempts to cure any harm or prejudice resulting from events that have already occurred.” Id. at 69 . 2010Importantly for this case, “[W]here the prejudice is curable, an instruction eliminates the need for a mistrial, thereby conserving the resources associated with beginning the trial process anew.” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Eckert v. State
green
1 sentence1989Eckert, supra, at 364 ; Broussard v. State, 505 S.W.2d 282, 285 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Howard v. State, 484 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Thompson v. State
green
2 sentences1981Broussard, supra; Thompson v. State, 486 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.Cr.App.); Howard v. State, 484 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Cr.App.). 1981Broussard, supra; Thompson v. State, 486 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.Cr.App.); Howard v. State, 484 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Cr.App.). | 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.