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.
44 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
County v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See County v. State, 812 S.W.2d 303, 308 (Tex. Crim. 2020See County v. State, 812 S.W.2d 303, 308 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Adkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Adkins v. State, 764 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Euziere v. State, 648 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Michael v. State, 864 S.W.2d 104, 109 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1993, no pet.). 1995Adkins v. State , 764 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Bell v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Divisiongreen2 sentences2009See Marcum v. State , 983 S.W.2d 762 , 767 n.1 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (citing Bell , 962 S.W.2d at 158 n.1). 2007See Marcum v. State , 983 S.W.2d 762 , 767 n.1 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (citing Bell , 962 S.W.2d at 158 n.1). | 4 | 4 |
Marcum v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Marcum v. State , 983 S.W.2d 762 , 767 n.1 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (citing Bell , 962 S.W.2d at 158 n.1). 2007See Marcum v. State , 983 S.W.2d 762 , 767 n.1 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (citing Bell , 962 S.W.2d at 158 n.1). | 4 | 4 |
Cuevas v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Cuevas v. State, 742 S.W.2d 331 , 335 n.4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)(discussing the dangers of a multifarious point of error), overruled on other grounds Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142 , 147 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). 2010See Cuevas v. State , 742 S.W.2d 331 , 335 n.4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)(discussing the dangers of a multifarious point of error), overruled on other grounds Hughes v. State , 878 S.W.2d 142 , 147 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). | 3 | 3 |
Euziere v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Euziere v. State , 648 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. Crim. 1995Adkins v. State, 764 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Euziere v. State, 648 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Michael v. State, 864 S.W.2d 104, 109 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1993, no pet.). | 2 | 3 |
Dickey v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See id. at 341 . 7 has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney . . . .’” Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 ). “‘Under both the Federal constitutional standard and the Texas Confession Statute, evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless the State proves the officer gave proper warnings and shows an affirmative waiver of rights by the accused.’”6 Id. at 840–41 (quoting Hutch 2015See id. at 341 . 6 . | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 803 (Tex. Crim. 2014Gilley — 8 dispose of it on discretionary review in the name of judicial economy.18 A remand in this cause would require the court of appeals potentially to address a number of ancillary issues, including: (1) whether it is appropriate to reach the appellant’s right-to-counsel argument in light of the fact that it was embedded in a multifarious point of error on appeal;19 and (2) whether the appellant’s right-to-counsel claim is subject to forfeiture by a failure to object at trial, or is, alternatively, a waiver-only right that can be raised for the first time on appeal in the absence of an e | 2 | 2 |
Colorado v. Connellygreen2 sentences2015See id. 17 IV. 2015See id. 9 . | 2 | 2 |
Prihoda v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Gilley — 8 dispose of it on discretionary review in the name of judicial economy.18 A remand in this cause would require the court of appeals potentially to address a number of ancillary issues, including: (1) whether it is appropriate to reach the appellant’s right-to-counsel argument in light of the fact that it was embedded in a multifarious point of error on appeal;19 and (2) whether the appellant’s right-to-counsel claim is subject to forfeiture by a failure to object at trial, or is, alternatively, a waiver-only right that can be raised for the first time on appeal in the absence of an e 2014A multifarious point of error “is based on more than one legal theory and raises more than one specific complaint.” Prihoda v. State, 352 S.W.3d 796, 801 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. ref’d). | 2 | 2 |
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Cuevas v. State, 742 S.W.2d 331 , 335 n.4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)(discussing the dangers of a multifarious point of error), overruled on other grounds Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142 , 147 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). 2010See Cuevas v. State , 742 S.W.2d 331 , 335 n.4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)(discussing the dangers of a multifarious point of error), overruled on other grounds Hughes v. State , 878 S.W.2d 142 , 147 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). | 2 | 2 |
Armstrong v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Armstrong v. State , 845 S.W.2d 909, 910 (Tex. Crim. 1994Armstrong v. State , 845 S.W.2d 909, 910 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Sterling v. Stategreen2 sentences1992See Sterling v. State , 800 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Tex. Crim. 1992While courts on occasion will address a multifarious point of error in the interest of justice, Sterling , 800 S.W.2d at 521 , our review of the complained of arguments reflect that the errors, if any, do not merit review under such standard. | 1 | 2 |
In Re SKAgreen1 sentence2017In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875, 894 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See id. at 341 . 7 has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney . . . .’” Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 ). “‘Under both the Federal constitutional standard and the Texas Confession Statute, evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless the State proves the officer gave proper warnings and shows an affirmative waiver of rights by the accused.’”6 Id. at 840–41 (quoting Hutch | 1 | 1 |
Kivean Deshai Coffey v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See id. at 341 . 7 has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney . . . .’” Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 ). “‘Under both the Federal constitutional standard and the Texas Confession Statute, evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless the State proves the officer gave proper warnings and shows an affirmative waiver of rights by the accused.’”6 Id. at 840–41 (quoting Hutch | 1 | 1 |
Timothy Hutchison v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See id. at 341 . 7 has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney . . . .’” Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 ). “‘Under both the Federal constitutional standard and the Texas Confession Statute, evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless the State proves the officer gave proper warnings and shows an affirmative waiver of rights by the accused.’”6 Id. at 840–41 (quoting Hutch | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2015See id. at 341 . 7 has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney . . . .’” Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 ). “‘Under both the Federal constitutional standard and the Texas Confession Statute, evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless the State proves the officer gave proper warnings and shows an affirmative waiver of rights by the accused.’”6 Id. at 840–41 (quoting Hutch 2015See id. at 341 . 7 has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney . . . .’” Coffey v. State, 435 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 ). “‘Under both the Federal constitutional standard and the Texas Confession Statute, evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless the State proves the officer gave proper warnings and shows an affirmative waiver of rights by the accused.’”6 Id. at 840–41 (quoting Hutch | 1 | 1 |
McCuin v. Stategreen1 sentence2012We will, however, in the interest of justice, review the complaints in this point of error that are preserved for appellate review. 5 McCuin v. State, 505 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Clayton v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Regardless of how we construe what is arguably a multifarious point of error, Lee has not explained how, much less demonstrated, that Section 42.07 of the Texas Penal Code is vague as applied to her. 9 v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Benson v. Stategreen1 sentence2008App. 1995); Benson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 478, 482 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. ref'd); Harris v. State, 133 1 If Fort is asserting claims of legally and factually insufficient evidence, he has presented a multifarious point of error. | 1 | 1 |
Hicks v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See, e.g. , Hicks v. State , 815 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Henry S. Miller Management Corp. v. Houston State Associatesgreen1 sentence1998See Henry S. Miller Management Corp. v. Houston State Assocs., 792 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Hollifield v. Hollifieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Michael v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rivera v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hinkle v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Granviel v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hodge v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stoker v. State
green
2 sentences1993Stoker v. State , 788 S.W.2d 1 , 18 n.14 (Tex. Crim. 1993Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1 , 18 n. 14 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 , 111 S.Ct. 371 , 112 L.Ed.2d 333 (1990). [Ajttorneys, when briefing constitutional questions, should carefully separate federal and state issues into separate grounds and provide substantive analysis or argument on each separate ground. | 3 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Mayorga
green
2 sentences2001Still further, even if the requested instruction on article 38.23 had been timely presented, the trial court would not have erred in denying the same under the circumstances presented and discussed in the first point of error and in light of Mayorga , 901 S.W.2d at 946 . 2001Still further, even if the requested instruction on article 38.23 had been timely presented, the trial court would not have erred in denying the same under the circumstances presented and discussed in the first point of error and in light of Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d at 946 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Hartwell v. Lone Star, PCA
green
1 sentence2025“A multifarious point of error is one that raises more than one specific ground of error,” Hartwell v. Lone Star, PCA, 528 S.W.3d 750 , 763 n.10 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, pet. dism’d), contrary to the commands of our procedural rules. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Davison, Anthony Ray
green
1 sentence2014Gilley — 8 dispose of it on discretionary review in the name of judicial economy.18 A remand in this cause would require the court of appeals potentially to address a number of ancillary issues, including: (1) whether it is appropriate to reach the appellant’s right-to-counsel argument in light of the fact that it was embedded in a multifarious point of error on appeal;19 and (2) whether the appellant’s right-to-counsel claim is subject to forfeiture by a failure to object at trial, or is, alternatively, a waiver-only right that can be raised for the first time on appeal in the absence of an e | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Jlb
green
1 sentence2012Bendalin’s Attempts to Rescind His Withdrawal Were Ineffective In a multifarious point of error grouped with the argument that he did not withdraw from YB Partnership,25 Bendalin argues that any oral withdrawal was revoked, as demonstrated by the many e-mails stating he would not be withdrawing and could not withdraw until terms of 24 Moreover, if applying all of the terms of Section 8.1, it could be reasoned that the oral notice was “deemed delivered as of the time of actual receipt thereof.” 25 “A point of error is multifarious if it embraces more than one specific ground of error.” In re J. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Malik v. State
green
1 sentence2007Malik , 953 S.W.2d at 240 . [8] The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Scott concluded text of Section 42.07(a)(4) suggests that it covers ordinary voice (and therefore voice mail) communication involving an ordinary telephone. Scott , 322 S.W.3d at 668 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence2007Malik , 953 S.W.2d at 240 . [8] The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Scott concluded text of Section 42.07(a)(4) suggests that it covers ordinary voice (and therefore voice mail) communication involving an ordinary telephone. Scott , 322 S.W.3d at 668 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Richardson v. Warden, Wade Correctional Center green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Schwarz v. Florida Supreme Court green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Herbage v. Carlson green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Chas. M. Betts & Co. v. Richardson green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Owens v. Meanor green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Livingston v. Texas green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.