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 2010–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Few v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Few, 230 S.W.3d at 188–190; Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.) (“Dismissal for an incorrect cause number, unlike a defective certification where there is no underlying right of appeal, bars an appeal based on a purely procedural error, rather than a substantive restriction.”); see also Ex parte Espinoza, No. 02-15- 00074-CR, 2015 WL 1967230 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 30, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (assigning sua sponte a criminal cause number on appeal where the trial court clerk had mistakenly assi 2010See id. at 189 (“[O]ur appellate rules ... disfavor() disposing of appeals based upon harmless procedural defects.”). | 4 | 4 |
Pena v. Stategreen2 sentences2024App. 2007); see also Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.) (“Dismissal for an incorrect cause number, unlike a defective certification where there is no underlying right of appeal, bars an appeal based on a purely procedural error, rather than a substantive restriction.”). 10 certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal, . . . [t]he trial court’s erroneous certification does not constitute permission to appeal”); Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3 2024App. 2007); see also Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.) (“Dismissal for an incorrect cause number, unlike a defective certification where there is no underlying right of appeal, bars an appeal based on a purely procedural error, rather than a substantive restriction.”). 10 certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal, . . . [t]he trial court’s erroneous certification does not constitute permission to appeal”); Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3 | 2 | 2 |
Waters v. Stategreen1 sentence2024App. 2007); see also Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.) (“Dismissal for an incorrect cause number, unlike a defective certification where there is no underlying right of appeal, bars an appeal based on a purely procedural error, rather than a substantive restriction.”). 10 certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal, . . . [t]he trial court’s erroneous certification does not constitute permission to appeal”); Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3 | 1 | 1 |
Carender v. Stategreen1 sentence2024App. 2007); see also Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.) (“Dismissal for an incorrect cause number, unlike a defective certification where there is no underlying right of appeal, bars an appeal based on a purely procedural error, rather than a substantive restriction.”). 10 certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal, . . . [t]he trial court’s erroneous certification does not constitute permission to appeal”); Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Menjivar v. Stategreen1 sentence2024But see Menjivar v. State, 264 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (“[W]hen the certification is defective by stating that a right of appeal exists where the 11 record affirmatively shows no right of appeal, we must . . . order the trial court to amend the certification to correct the defect in the certification.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ajagbe v. State
green
1 sentence2024App. 2007); see also Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.) (“Dismissal for an incorrect cause number, unlike a defective certification where there is no underlying right of appeal, bars an appeal based on a purely procedural error, rather than a substantive restriction.”). 10 certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal, . . . [t]he trial court’s erroneous certification does not constitute permission to appeal”); Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019As a result, the Court held that satisfaction of the condition was for the arbitrators to decide, not the courts, because parties “normally expect a forum-based decision-maker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters.” Id. at 34- 35, quoting Howsam, 537 U.S. at 86 .10 Our supreme court adopted this same view in G.T. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 35- 36 (“The litigation provision is consequently a purely procedural requirement--a claims-processing 22 rule that governs when the arbitration may begin, but not whether it may occur or what its substantive outcome will be on the issues in dispute.”). 2019As a result, the Court held that satisfaction of the condition was for the arbitrators to decide, not the courts, because parties “normally expect a forum-based decision-maker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters.” Id. at 34- 35, quoting Howsam, 537 U.S. at 86 .10 Our supreme court adopted this same view in G.T. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.