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 2006–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Castor v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Forooghi, 185 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. Crim. 2009See Castor v. State , 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Forooghi , 185 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Forooghigreen2 sentences2009See Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Forooghi, 185 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. Crim. 2009See Castor v. State , 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Forooghi , 185 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2022Franklin argues that while the complainant’s examination was not taken by law enforcement, “it [was] taken specifically to create evidence used for prosecution.” Franklin quotes Ohio v. Clark for the proposition that “[i]n the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’” 576 U.S. 237 , 245, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2180 (2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryan, 562 U.S. 344 , 358, 131 S. Ct. 1143 , 1155 (2011)). 4 The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. 2022Franklin argues that while the complainant’s examination was not taken by law enforcement, “it [was] taken specifically to create evidence used for prosecution.” Franklin quotes Ohio v. Clark for the proposition that “[i]n the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’” 576 U.S. 237 , 245, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2180 (2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryan, 562 U.S. 344 , 358, 131 S. Ct. 1143 , 1155 (2011)). 4 The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. | 1 | 1 |
De La Paz v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Franklin argues that while the complainant’s examination was not taken by law enforcement, “it [was] taken specifically to create evidence used for prosecution.” Franklin quotes Ohio v. Clark for the proposition that “[i]n the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’” 576 U.S. 237 , 245, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2180 (2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryan, 562 U.S. 344 , 358, 131 S. Ct. 1143 , 1155 (2011)). 4 The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Fostergreen1 sentence2015The defendants attempt to 'incorporate... by reference' arguments in their brief to the district court seekingto dismiss the non-Franklin defendants on this basis, but 'appellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by reference.' Albrechtsen v. Bd. ofRegents, 309 F.3d 433,435-36 (7th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457,462 (7th Cir. 1986)."); Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad, 492 F.3d 1192 , 1207 2 (1Oth Cir. 2007)("Defendants made no argument regarding their interest as employers either in their motion for summary judgment or in their appellate brief. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2022Franklin argues that while the complainant’s examination was not taken by law enforcement, “it [was] taken specifically to create evidence used for prosecution.” Franklin quotes Ohio v. Clark for the proposition that “[i]n the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’” 576 U.S. 237 , 245, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2180 (2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryan, 562 U.S. 344 , 358, 131 S. Ct. 1143 , 1155 (2011)). 4 The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. 2022Franklin argues that while the complainant’s examination was not taken by law enforcement, “it [was] taken specifically to create evidence used for prosecution.” Franklin quotes Ohio v. Clark for the proposition that “[i]n the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’” 576 U.S. 237 , 245, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2180 (2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryan, 562 U.S. 344 , 358, 131 S. Ct. 1143 , 1155 (2011)). 4 The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
ctl/thompson Texas, Llc v. Starwood Homeowner's Association, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022The Supreme Court has explained that “dismissal [with prejudice] is a sanction . . . to deter meritless claims and bring them quickly to an end.” Id. 10 Here, because the trial court denied Aran & Franklin’s motion to dismiss, it did not decide the prejudice issue. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ohio v. Clark
green
1 sentence2022Franklin argues that while the complainant’s examination was not taken by law enforcement, “it [was] taken specifically to create evidence used for prosecution.” Franklin quotes Ohio v. Clark for the proposition that “[i]n the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’” 576 U.S. 237 , 245, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2180 (2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryan, 562 U.S. 344 , 358, 131 S. Ct. 1143 , 1155 (2011)). 4 The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ohio v. Clark
green
1 sentence2022Franklin argues that while the complainant’s examination was not taken by law enforcement, “it [was] taken specifically to create evidence used for prosecution.” Franklin quotes Ohio v. Clark for the proposition that “[i]n the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’” 576 U.S. 237 , 245, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2180 (2015) (quoting Michigan v. Bryan, 562 U.S. 344 , 358, 131 S. Ct. 1143 , 1155 (2011)). 4 The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy
green
1 sentence2015The defendants attempt to 'incorporate... by reference' arguments in their brief to the district court seekingto dismiss the non-Franklin defendants on this basis, but 'appellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by reference.' Albrechtsen v. Bd. ofRegents, 309 F.3d 433,435-36 (7th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457,462 (7th Cir. 1986)."); Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad, 492 F.3d 1192 , 1207 2 (1Oth Cir. 2007)("Defendants made no argument regarding their interest as employers either in their motion for summary judgment or in their appellate brief. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Steven J. Albrechtsen v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Cross-Appellee, and H. Gaylon Greenhill
green
1 sentence2015The defendants attempt to 'incorporate... by reference' arguments in their brief to the district court seekingto dismiss the non-Franklin defendants on this basis, but 'appellate briefs may not incorporate other documents by reference.' Albrechtsen v. Bd. ofRegents, 309 F.3d 433,435-36 (7th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457,462 (7th Cir. 1986)."); Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad, 492 F.3d 1192 , 1207 2 (1Oth Cir. 2007)("Defendants made no argument regarding their interest as employers either in their motion for summary judgment or in their appellate brief. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Curry v. Gray
green
1 sentence2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Franklin v. State
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.