Skip to main content

Hoyos v. State

Citations

  • 951 S.W.2d 503
  • 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 4135
  • 1997 WL 441875

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that when evidence is excluded in violation of the confrontation clause, the complaining party must let the trial judge know what he wants and why he is entitled to it
  • holding that when evidence is excluded in violation of the confrontation clause, the complaining party must let the trial judge know what he wants and why he is entitled to it
  • holding that when evidence is excluded in violation of the confrontation clause, the complaining party must let the trial judge know what he wants and why he is entitled to it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Yates, Hudson, Fowler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.