reasonable belief rule (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

reasonable belief rule in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Penry v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 741 (Tex. Crim.

11
Gonzales v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020The reasonable belief standard is “employed precisely to avoid different applications of the law . . . to defendants of different races, creed, color, sex or social status.” Gonzales v. State, 689 S.W.2d 900, 903 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985).

11
Rickels v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. Crim.

11
Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co.green
texapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See id. at 543 . *703 KMC's position is contrary to our liberal application of the reasonable belief rule.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Steele green
utahctapp · 2010
1 sentence

2015E.g., Steele, 236 P.3d at 170–72 (noting but not resolving argument); State v. Jacobson, 697 N.W.2d 610 , 615–16 (Minn. 2005) (rejecting State’s argument). 17 jury a vehicle to find appellant not guilty if he thought he was a resident in reliance on the authorities.

12015–2015
State v. Jacobson green
minn · 2005
1 sentence

2015E.g., Steele, 236 P.3d at 170–72 (noting but not resolving argument); State v. Jacobson, 697 N.W.2d 610 , 615–16 (Minn. 2005) (rejecting State’s argument). 17 jury a vehicle to find appellant not guilty if he thought he was a resident in reliance on the authorities.

12015–2015
Keck, Mahin & Cate v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh green
tex · 2000
2 sentences

2004Id. at 703 (quoting 1 Allan D.

2004Id. at 703 (quoting 1 ALLAN D.

12004–2004

Where else courts name it

IL 35 (1970–2020) CA 19 (1981–2025) WA 16 (1985–2025) PA 15 (1982–2025) NY 11 (1966–2025) MO 10 (1981–2024) RI 9 (1976–2017) OH 8 (1993–2026) OK 7 (1987–2020) IN 7 (1980–2015) GA 6 (1981–2025) FL 6 (1967–2026) CO 6 (1989–2025) TX 6 (2000–2024) NJ 6 (1996–2026) ID 5 (1987–2019) MD 3 (1999–2020) NV 3 (2015–2015) AZ 3 (1976–2018) CT 3 (1997–2023) DC 3 (1957–2021) AK 2 (1979–1992) NM 2 (1986–1995) WI 2 (2014–2015) NE 2 (1992–2009) WV 2 (1985–1999) UT 2 (2020–2020) KS 2 (2006–2018) TN 2 (2001–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check