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 1915–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sorola v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Morales v. State, No. 04-98-00616-CR, 1999 WL 792418 at *2 (Tex.App.-- San Antonio Oct. 6, 1999, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication); Sorola v. State, 674 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984), aff’d on other grounds, 693 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). 2011See Morales v. State , No. 04-98-00616-CR, 1999 WL 792418 at *2 (Tex.App.--San Antonio Oct. 6, 1999, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication); Sorola v. State , 674 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984), aff’d on other grounds , 693 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). | 2 | 2 |
Hossley v. Roadway Express, Inc.green2 sentences1997Bekins bases its contention on a line of cases typified by Hossley v. Roadway Express, Inc., 419 S.W.2d 396, 397 (Tex.Civ. 1997Bekins bases its contention on. a line of cases typified by Hossley v. Roadway Express, Inc., 419 S.W.2d 396, 397 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sorola v. State
green
2 sentences2011See Morales v. State , No. 04-98-00616-CR, 1999 WL 792418 at *2 (Tex.App.--San Antonio Oct. 6, 1999, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication); Sorola v. State , 674 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984), aff’d on other grounds , 693 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). 2011See Morales v. State, No. 04-98-00616-CR, 1999 WL 792418 at *2 (Tex.App.-- San Antonio Oct. 6, 1999, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication); Sorola v. State, 674 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984), aff’d on other grounds, 693 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Garcia v. State
green
1 sentence2015Moreover, as in Garcia v. State, State 919 S.W.2d at 381 , where the court concluded that the erroneous admission of the defendant’s written statement in violation of art. 38.22, § 2(b) was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: 29 [T]hrough appellant’s motion to suppress the signed written statement and his objections at trial, the prosecutor and the trial judge were well aware of the deficiencies present on the face of appellant’s written statement. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Black v. Romano
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Insurance Company v. Eastman
green
2 sentences1915The well-established rule is: “That whenever a witness is sought to be impeached by showing that he has made declarations inconsistent with the testimony given by him upon the trial, and the tendency of such impeaching evidence is to show that the testimony of the -witness is, by reason of some motive existing at the time of the trial or of some influence then operating upon him, fabricated, it is proper to admit evidence of his former declarations which corroborate his testimony, pro *72 vided such declarations were made at a time when no such motive or influence existed.” Insurance Co. v. Ea 1915The well-established rule is: “That whenever a witness is sought to be impeached by showing that he has made declarations inconsistent with the testimony given by him upon the trial, and the tendency of such impeaching evidence is to show that the testimony of the -witness is, by reason of some motive existing at the time of the trial or of some influence then operating upon him, fabricated, it is proper to admit evidence of his former declarations which corroborate his testimony, pro *72 vided such declarations were made at a time when no such motive or influence existed.” Insurance Co. v. Ea | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Davis v. Davis
green
1 sentence1915The well-established rule is: “That whenever a witness is sought to be impeached by showing that he has made declarations inconsistent with the testimony given by him upon the trial, and the tendency of such impeaching evidence is to show that the testimony of the -witness is, by reason of some motive existing at the time of the trial or of some influence then operating upon him, fabricated, it is proper to admit evidence of his former declarations which corroborate his testimony, pro *72 vided such declarations were made at a time when no such motive or influence existed.” Insurance Co. v. Ea | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.