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 3 courts 1926–1998 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sontag v. Stategreen2 sentences1998He was not "required to stand on his objection, to his prejudice, and hope that the trial court's [perceived] error was reversible on appeal." Sontag v. State , 841 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd). 1998He was not “required to stand on his objection, to his prejudice, and hope that the trial court’s [per *56 ceived] error was reversible on appeal.” Sontag v. State, 841 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Nathan v. Stategreen1 sentence1993See Nathan v. State, 788 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, no pet.) (error is cured when the same evidence or argument has been previously permitted without objection). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sunland Supply Co. v. State
neutral
1 sentence1966The Court of Civil Appeals sitting at El Paso reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered a new trial because it considered that the trial court had committed error in refusing to retire the jury and allowing counsel for Sunland to examine a State’s appraisal witness upon voir dire outside of the presence of the jury, and had committed fundamental error in admitting testimony as to a so-called “comparable sale.” 392 S.W.2d 369 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1934Johnson v. State, 108 Texas Crim. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Barnett v. State
green
1 sentence1926In support of this proposition we are referred to Barnes v. State, 59 S. W. 882 ; Barnett v. State, 176 S. W. 580 ; Cox v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Barnes v. State
green
1 sentence1926In support of this proposition we are referred to Barnes v. State, 59 S. W. 882 ; Barnett v. State, 176 S. W. 580 ; Cox v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.