Legal Opinion

Taylor v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided April 1, 1993No. 01-91-01053-CRPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

COHEN, Justice.

Appellant has filed a vigorous motion for rehearing, alleging that we have split hairs and elevated form over substance by holding that the complaints raised for the first time in his memorandum of law filed November 1, 1991, presented nothing for review. Appellant complains that by holding the memorandum was neither an objection nor a motion sufficient to preserve review under Tex.R.App.P. 52(a), we have judged the motion by its title when we should have judged it by its substance. We will elaborate on our holding.

The trial judge held an…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tate v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Lankston v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  3. Mason v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1987
  4. Rice v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1983

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Taylor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
  2. State v. Hayden Huse, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2014
  3. State v. Melissa Brantley Crumpler, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2018
  4. Taylor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API