45 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hollins v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“The purpose of a timely objection is to give the trial judge the opportunity to cure error.” Hollins v. State, 805 S.W.2d 475, 476 (Tex. Crim. 2015A. Preservation of Error “The purpose of a timely objection is to give the trial judge the opportunity to cure error.” Hollins v. State, 805 S.W.2d 475, 476 (Tex. Crim. | 8 | 12 |
Lake v. Premier Transportationgreen2 sentences2014See Tryco Enters., Inc. v. Robinson, 390 S.W.3d 497, 505 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d) (stating, in context of Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Rule of Evidence 103, that “the party must have made a timely, specific objection at the earliest possible opportunity”); Lake v. Premier Transp., 246 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2007, no pet.) (“To be considered timely, an objection must be specific enough to enable the trial court to understand the precise nature of the error alleged and interposed at such a point in the proceedings so as to enable the trial court the oppor 2012Co., 772 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Tex. 1989) (stating that specific objection enables trial court to understand precise grounds and make informed ruling and affords offering party opportunity to remedy defect, if possible); Lake v. Premier Transp., 246 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex.App.Tyler 2007, no pet.) (observing that specific and timely objection is necessary to preserve argument for appellate review and stating, “To be considered timely, an objection must be specific enough to enable the trial court to understand the precise nature of the error alleged and interposed at such a point in the proceedings so a | 5 | 5 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Hollins, 805 S.W.2d at 476 (citing Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982)). 2015See generally Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Cockrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Cockrell v. State , 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). 2003See Cockrell v. State , 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). | 4 | 4 |
In Re JGgreen2 sentences2015App. 1991); In re J.G., 195 S.W.3d 161, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.). 2015App. 1991); In re J.G., 195 S.W.3d 161, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
McKinney v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburghgreen2 sentences2012Co., 772 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Tex. 1989) (stating that specific objection enables trial court to understand precise grounds and make informed ruling and affords offering party opportunity to remedy defect, if possible); Lake v. Premier Transp., 246 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2007, no pet.) (observing that specific and timely objection is necessary to preserve argument for appellate review and stating, “To be considered timely, an objection must be specific enough to enable the trial court to understand the precise nature of the error alleged and interposed at such a point in the 11 proceedings 2012Co., 772 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Tex. 1989) (stating that specific objection enables trial court to understand precise grounds and make informed ruling and affords offering party opportunity to remedy defect, if possible); Lake v. Premier Transp., 246 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex.App.Tyler 2007, no pet.) (observing that specific and timely objection is necessary to preserve argument for appellate review and stating, “To be considered timely, an objection must be specific enough to enable the trial court to understand the precise nature of the error alleged and interposed at such a point in the proceedings so a | 2 | 2 |
Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners Ex Rel. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Park Warwick L.P.green2 sentences2009The supreme court has instructed us to liberally construe the rules in favor of preserving the right to appeal of a party who makes a bona fide (1) attempt to invoke our jurisdiction, id. at 616 , and to give an appellant the opportunity to cure error when possible in favor of reaching the merits of an appeal, Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Park Warwick, L.P. , 244 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008) (quoting Grand Prairie Indep. 2009The supreme court has instructed us to liberally construe the rules in favor of preserving the right to appeal of a party who makes a bona fide1 attempt to invoke our jurisdiction, id. at 616 , and to give an appellant the opportunity to cure error when possible in favor of reaching the merits of an appeal, Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Park Warwick, L.P., 244 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008) (quoting Grand Prairie Indep. | 2 | 2 |
Elliott v. KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC.green2 sentences2007See, e.g. , Elliott v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc. , 118 S.W.3d 50, 56 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) ("The proper remedy for a trial court's refusal to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is abatement of an appeal, thereby giving the trial court an opportunity to cure its error."). 2007“The proper remedy for a trial court’s” failure “to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is abatement of an appeal, thereby giving the trial court an opportunity to cure its error.” Elliott v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 50, 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see Tex. R. | 2 | 2 |
Torres v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Torres v. State , 491 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tex. Crim. 2003See Torres v. State, 491 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Beall v. Ditmoregreen2 sentences1995As explained by then-justice and now Chief Justice Barajas in Beall, “ ‘[tjimeliness’ defies definition,” but “it is clear from a simple reading of Texas law, that objections, in order to be considered timely, must be ... interposed at such a point in the proceedings so as to enable the trial court the opportunity to cure the error alleged, if any.” Beall, 867 S.W.2d at 795 . 1995As explained by then-Justice and now Chief Justice Barajas in Beall , "`[t]imeliness' defies definition," but "it is clear from a simple reading of Texas law, that objections, in order to be considered timely, must be ... interposed at such a point in the proceedings so as to enable the trial court the opportunity to cure the error alleged, if any." Beall, 867 S.W.2d at 795 . | 1 | 2 |
Trevino v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 855 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Nagakrishna Reddy, M.D. And New Braunfels Ob/Gyn, P.A. v. Haley Hebner and Darrin Charles Scott, Individually and as Next Friends of R. M. S., a Minorgreen1 sentence2015Id. at 337-42 (Pemberton, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Peter John Schuster v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Hollins, 805 S.W.2d at 476 ; Schuster v. State, 435 S.W.3d 362, 366 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 855 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bush v. Bushgreen1 sentence2014See Bush, 336 S.W.3d at 728-29 (holding that objection to scope of amicus attorney’s appointment made in motion for new trial filed more than eighteen months after court appointed amicus attorney failed to preserve complaint for appeal); cf. Suttles v. Vestin Realty Mortg. | 1 | 1 |
Tryco Enterprises Inc., Sharon C. Dixon, James Dixon, Crown Staffing, Inc. and Troy Keith Dixon v. James A. Robinsongreen2 sentences2014See Tryco Enters., Inc. v. Robinson, 390 S.W.3d 497, 505 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d) (stating, in context of Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Rule of Evidence 103, that “the party must have made a timely, specific objection at the earliest possible opportunity”); Lake v. Premier Transp., 246 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2007, no pet.) (“To be considered timely, an objection must be specific enough to enable the trial court to understand the precise nature of the error alleged and interposed at such a point in the proceedings so as to enable the trial court the oppor 2014See Tryco Enters., Inc. v. Robinson, 390 S.W.3d 497, 505 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d) (stating, in context of Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Rule of Evidence 103, that “the party must have made a timely, specific objection at the earliest possible opportunity”); Lake v. Premier Transp., 246 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2007, no pet.) (“To be considered timely, an objection must be specific enough to enable the trial court to understand the precise nature of the error alleged and interposed at such a point in the proceedings so as to enable the trial court the oppor | 1 | 1 |
Shelton v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Shelton v. State , 441 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen1 sentence1998See State v. Evans, 843 S.W.2d 576 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissiongreen1 sentence1996El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| 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 sentences2008Almanza , 686 S.W.2d at 157 . 2008Almanza , 686 S.W.2d at 157 . | 4 | 2008–2008 |
Verburgt v. Dorner
green
2 sentences2009The supreme court has instructed us to liberally construe the rules in favor of preserving the right to appeal of a party who makes a bona fide (1) attempt to invoke our jurisdiction, id. at 616 , and to give an appellant the opportunity to cure error when possible in favor of reaching the merits of an appeal, Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Park Warwick, L.P. , 244 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008) (quoting Grand Prairie Indep. 2009The supreme court has instructed us to liberally construe the rules in favor of preserving the right to appeal of a party who makes a bona fide1 attempt to invoke our jurisdiction, id. at 616 , and to give an appellant the opportunity to cure error when possible in favor of reaching the merits of an appeal, Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Park Warwick, L.P., 244 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008) (quoting Grand Prairie Indep. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Latisha Guillory v. Christopher Boykins
green
1 sentence2023Gabel, 649 S.W.3d at 596; Guillory, 3 442 S.W.3d at 689 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napier
green
1 sentence2018To be sure, some of these opinions relied on Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier , 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970), for the proposition that a summary judgment will be upheld if the appellant fails to challenge a ground upon which the motion *323 may have been granted, notwithstanding that Malooly was grounded in the abandoned "point of error" designation regime and pre-dates the amendments to our rules, thus depriving the appellant of the opportunity to address the issue after having been given notice and the opportunity to cure under rule 38.9. 10 Of course rule 38.9(b) makes no distinction between bri | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence2015Martinez, 22 S.W.3d at 507 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.