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 1925–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gregg v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp.green2 sentences2023The entry requirement may be satisfied by proof the defendant caused or permitted “a thing to cross the boundary of the premises.” Gregg v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp., 162 Tex. 26 , 344 S.W.2d 411, 416 (1961). 2023The entry requirement may be satisfied by proof the defendant caused or permitted “a thing to cross the boundary of the premises.” Gregg v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp., 162 Tex. 26 , 344 S.W.2d 411, 416 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
Guidry v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Guidry 9 S.W.3d 133 . | 1 | 1 |
Jeffery v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Jeffery v. State , 169 S.W.3d 439 , 443 n.1 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd) (State need only demonstrate that exigent circumstances justified the entry when the defense has established a prima facie case.) Therefore, the trial court did not err when it overruled defense counsel's objection. | 1 | 1 |
Janicek v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Janicek v. State , 634 S.W.2d 687, 691 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bowles v. Bell
neutral
1 sentence1929It is noteworthy that when a claim has been presented and entered on the claim •docket together with its approval as required by Article 1847, all the information in reference thereto is made of record as fully as if the order of approval had been spread upon the minutes in the form of an ordinary judgment.” In Bowles v. Bell, 270 S. W. 1013 , the Commission of Appeals cited, with approval, De Cordova v. Rogers, supra, and said: “Article 3213 of our Statutes requires the clerk of the county court to keep what is styled a ‘Claim docket,’ which is one of the probate records, and it has been defi | 1 | 1929–1929 |
De Cordova v. Rogers
green
2 sentences1925De Cordova v. Rogers, 97 Tex. 60 , 75 S. W. 16 ; Krawietz v. Kneiski (Tex. Civ. 1925De Cordova v. Rogers, 97 Tex. 60 , 75 S. W. 16 ; Krawietz v. Kneiski (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.