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 2000–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gold v. Goldgreen2 sentences2015Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex.2004) (“[A] restricted appeal requires error that is apparent, not error that may be inferred ”). 2015Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004) (“[A] restricted appeal requires error that is apparent, not error that may be inferred.”). | 2 | 2 |
Cosio v. Stategreen2 sentences2014To obtain a reversal, the record must show the error “affected ‘the very basis of the case,’ ‘deprive[d] the defendant of a valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect[ed] a defensive theory.’ ” Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 777 (alterations in original) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). 2014To obtain a reversal, the record must show the error “affected ‘the very basis of the case,’ ‘deprive[d] the defendant of a valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect[ed] a defensive theory.’” Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 777 (alterations in original) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). | 2 | 2 |
Hutch v. Stategreen2 sentences2014In determining whether egregious harm is shown, we look at “1) the charge itself; 2) the state of the evidence including contested issues and the weight of the probative evidence; 3) arguments of counsel; and 4) any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); accord Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 777 . 2014In determining whether egregious harm is shown, we look at “1) the charge itself; 2) the state of the evidence including contested issues and the weight of the probative evidence; 3) arguments of counsel; and 4) any other relevant information revealed - 12 - 04-13-00081-CR by the record of the trial as a whole.” Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Robert John Greig and Craig Wayne Hanleygreen2 sentences2011Greig , 967 F.2d at 1021 ; Ramirez , 13 S.W.3d at 487 n.2. 2000United States v. Greig, 967 F.2d 1018, 1021 (5th Cir.1992). 2 While a trial court does not always have an affirmative duty to inquire into the possibility of a conflict of interest, it does have a duty to conduct a hearing once it has been alerted — and certainly when it knows — of the existence of an actual conflict of interest. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. State
green
2 sentences2014To obtain a reversal, the record must show the error “affected ‘the very basis of the case,’ ‘deprive[d] the defendant of a valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect[ed] a defensive theory.’ ” Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 777 (alterations in original) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). 2014To obtain a reversal, the record must show the error “affected ‘the very basis of the case,’ ‘deprive[d] the defendant of a valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect[ed] a defensive theory.’” Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 777 (alterations in original) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Ramirez v. State
green
1 sentence2011Greig , 967 F.2d at 1021 ; Ramirez , 13 S.W.3d at 487 n.2. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.