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 2 courts 1986–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2016In its brief, the State responds that, “[e]ven if this was an improper question[,] it will not constitute reversible error unless the question results in obvious harm to the accused.” See Patheal v. State, No. 11-13-00179-CR, 2015 WL 1569932 , *3 (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 2, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“The mere asking of an improper question will not constitute reversible error unless the question results in obvious harm to the accused.” (quoting Brown v. State, 692 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gifford v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Gifford v. State, 793 S.W.2d 48, 49 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, pet. dism’d). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Fisher v. State, 379 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) and Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Fisher v. State, 379 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) and Washington v. State, 582 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. State
red
1 sentence1992Hill v. State , 256 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Jamail v. State
green
2 sentences1987In support of his contentions appellant cites Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. pending). 1987In support of his contentions appellant cites Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. pending). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Cody v. State
green
2 sentences1987In Cody v. State, 548 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Crim.App.1977), the court described the predicate which must be laid before the results of a breath test may be introduced into evidence: (1) the use of properly compounded chemicals; (2) the existence of periodic supervision over the machine by one who understands scientific theory of the machine; (3) proof of the result of the test by a witness qualified to translate and interpret such result so as to eliminate hearsay. 1987In Cody v. State, 548 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), the court described the predicate which must be laid before the results of a breath test may be introduced into evidence: (1) the use of properly compounded chemicals; (2) the existence of periodic supervision over the machine by one who understands scientific theory of the machine; (3) proof of the result of the test by a witness qualified to translate and interpret such result so as to eliminate hearsay. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1987In support of his contentions appellant cites Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. pending). 1987In support of his contentions appellant cites Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. pending). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1987In support of his contentions appellant cites Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. pending). 1987In support of his contentions appellant cites Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. pending). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Morgan v. State
green
2 sentences1986Appellant then pled guilty with the agreement that he could appeal the trial court's order. [7] See Art. 44.02, V.A.C.C.P.; Morgan v. State, 688 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.Cr. 1986Appellant then pled guilty with the agreement that he could appeal the trial court’s order. 7 See Art. 44.02, V.A.C.C.P.; Morgan v. State, 688 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.