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 1996–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Abbott v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Abbott v. State , 196 S.W.3d 334, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Waco 2006, pet. ref'd) (concluding that jury argument was improper where the State's closing argument misstated the law on the burden of proof). 2009See Abbott v. State, 196 S.W.3d 334 , 343- 44 (Tex. App.–Waco 2006, pet. ref’d) (concluding that jury argument was improper where the State’s closing argument misstated the law on the burden of proof). | 2 | 2 |
Peter C. Browning v. Jeff P. Prostokgreen2 sentences2007See Browning, 165 S.W.3d at 346 . 2007See Browning , 165 S.W.3d at 346 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jessica Pineda v. State
green
1 sentence2024Since “the trial court committed constitutional error by denying [Sotelo]’s motion to suppress, we must reverse her conviction unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to her conviction.” Pineda, 444 S.W.3d at 144 (citing TEX. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Armstrong v. State
green
1 sentence1996The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that So-telo’s claim was not properly before it and remanded the cause to us to consider Sotelo’s claim that our remand to the trial court for a new punishment hearing violated double jeopardy 1 in view of its opinion in Armstrong v. State, 805 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.