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 2005–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Assiter v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Assiter , 58 S.W.3d at 746–47. 2007See Assiter , 58 S.W.3d at 748 ; see also Quattrocchi , 173 S.W.3d at 122 . | 4 | 4 |
Quattrocchi v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Section 9.61 sets forth a parental justification defense that is available when a parent uses non-deadly force against a child younger than 18 years "when and to the degree the [person] reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.61 (a)(2) (Vernon 2003); Quattrocchi v. State , 173 S.W.3d 120, 122 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd). 2006See Giesberg , 984 S.W.2d at 250 (holding appellant not entitled to a separate jury instruction on his defense of alibi because it involved nothing more than complete negation of his involvement in the commission of the offense and the legislature did not include alibi within the enumerated defenses of the penal code); see also Noyola , 2004 WL 2867531 , at *2 (holding appellant not entitled to a separate jury instruction on his “diabetic condition defense” because it merely negates an element of the offense alleged by the State in its indictment and it is not enumerated in the penal code as a | 3 | 3 |
Prenger v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Parental Justification Defense Defined The parental justification defense of Texas Penal Code section 9.61 is available only in those cases in which a parent, or one properly acting as a parent, uses nondeadly force and “when and to the degree the [person] reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.61 (a)(2); Prenger v. State, 108 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd); see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.01 . 2005Parental Justification Defense Defined The parental justification defense of Texas Penal Code section 9.61 is available only in those cases in which a parent, or one properly acting as a parent, uses nondeadly force and "when and to the degree the [person] reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.61(a)(2); Prenger v. State, 108 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.01. | 3 | 3 |
Giesberg v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Giesberg , 984 S.W.2d at 250 (holding appellant not entitled to a separate jury instruction on his defense of alibi because it involved nothing more than complete negation of his involvement in the commission of the offense and the legislature did not include alibi within the enumerated defenses of the penal code); see also Noyola , 2004 WL 2867531 , at *2 (holding appellant not entitled to a separate jury instruction on his “diabetic condition defense” because it merely negates an element of the offense alleged by the State in its indictment and it is not enumerated in the penal code as a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.