Texas evidence case law, the honest way
A PINNED case was loaded verbatim from the Texas judiciary's own portal — double-fetched, hash-verified, and read back — and may be quoted here, only through the needle floor. A REFUSED case is one whose official full text we could not pin this phase: it is named with its citation and topic, and nothing of it is quoted or paraphrased. This corpus is not a citator. Treatment statements are as of 2026-08-05; whether a case remains good law for a purpose is verification work a lawyer performs with a citator at matter time.
Pinned — the courts' own words
Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge
in review438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) · Supreme Court of Texas · docket 10-0846
Spoliation — the trigger, the judge's two-step process, and the instruction threshold
“substantial chance that a claim will be filed and that evidence in its possession or control will be material and relevant to that claim”
“a spoliation analysis involves a two-step judicial process: (1) the trial court must determine, as a question of law, whether a party spoliated evidence, and (2) if spoliation occurred, the court must assess an appropriate remedy”
“A failure to preserve evidence with a negligent mental state may only underlie a spoliation instruction in the rare situation in which a nonspoliating party has been irreparably deprived of any meaningful ability to present a claim or defense”
Read the opinion verbatim — hash and review state on the unit page →
Haygood v. De Escabedo
in review356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011) · Supreme Court of Texas · docket 09-0377
Medical expenses — paid-or-incurred and what evidence is admissible
“we hold that only evidence of recoverable medical expenses is admissible at trial”
“limited to the amount actually paid or incurred”
Read the opinion verbatim — hash and review state on the unit page →
Tienda v. State
in review358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · docket PD-0312-11
Digital authentication — social-media evidence and the circumstantial route
“Evidence may be authenticated in a number of ways, including by direct testimony from a witness with personal knowledge, by comparison with other authenticated evidence, or by circumstantial evidence”
“requires the proponent to make a threshold showing that would be “sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.””
Read the opinion verbatim — hash and review state on the unit page →
The pinned units serve in_review — the review-state flip is the founder's act on the standing register, exactly as it is for the Florida opinion layer, and this page shows the state it finds.
Named and refused — nothing quoted
These cases matter to Texas evidence law, and this platform will not quote or paraphrase what it has not pinned from an official publisher. Each is named with its citation and the reason it stands refused; upgrading a refusal is a ledger edit and a loader rerun, never a silent code change.
Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Head
454 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. 2014) · Supreme Court of Texas
Spoliation — duty, prejudice, and proportionate remedy
REFUSED — the docket probed from the audited pack's citation did not resolve on the judiciary's portal this phase.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson
923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) · Supreme Court of Texas
Civil expert reliability — the Texas gatekeeping factors
REFUSED — pre-portal era; no official full text located this phase.
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc.
972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) · Supreme Court of Texas
Experts — reliability beyond hard science; the analytical gap
REFUSED — pre-portal era; no official full text located this phase.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez
204 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2006) · Supreme Court of Texas
Experts — methodology and unreliable opinions
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Ramirez
159 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2004) · Supreme Court of Texas
Experts — analytical gaps
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho
298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) · Supreme Court of Texas
Experts — factors, testing, alternative causes
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Solutions, Inc.
464 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2015) · Supreme Court of Texas
Experts — methodology, assumptions, and data
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
City of San Antonio v. Pollock
284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) · Supreme Court of Texas
Experts — conclusory opinions as no evidence
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Kelly v. State
824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Criminal scientific-evidence reliability (criminal-lane context)
REFUSED — pre-portal era; criminal-lane context is routed to counsel regardless.
Nenno v. State
970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Soft-science reliability (criminal-lane context)
REFUSED — pre-portal era; criminal-lane context is routed to counsel regardless.
Gigliobianco v. State
210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Rule 403 — the factor framework
REFUSED — the docket probed from the audited pack's citation did not resolve on the judiciary's portal this phase.
Montgomery v. State
810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Rule 404(b) — relevance apart from character (criminal-lane context)
REFUSED — pre-portal era; criminal-lane context is routed to counsel regardless.
De La Paz v. State
279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Other acts — purpose, notice, 403 (criminal-lane context)
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Butler v. State
459 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Text-message authentication — no single mandatory method
REFUSED — the docket probed from the audited pack's citation did not resolve on the judiciary's portal this phase.
Lankston v. State
827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Preservation — the objection must make the complaint known
REFUSED — pre-portal era; no official full text located this phase.
In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC
627 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2021) · Supreme Court of Texas
Medical-price discovery and reasonableness context
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Gunn v. McCoy
554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018) · Supreme Court of Texas
Medical billing proof and damages
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong
145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) · Supreme Court of Texas
Other incidents — substantial similarity
REFUSED — docket not identified from official sources this phase.
Ortega v. Cach, LLC
396 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) · Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Adopted third-party business records
REFUSED — court-of-appeals acquisition not attempted this phase.
Henderson v. State
No. 05-25-00491-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas May 27, 2026) · Fifth Court of Appeals
Instagram authentication — the pack's recent-opinion claim, unverified
REFUSED — recent-opinion claim from the audited pack; official acquisition and verification not completed this phase.
Trevino v. Velocity Investments, LLC
No. 10-25-00249-CV (Tex. App.—Waco 2026) · Tenth Court of Appeals
Rule 902(10) substantial compliance — the pack's recent-opinion claim, unverified
REFUSED — recent-opinion claim from the audited pack; official acquisition and verification not completed this phase.
The sweep queues — later work, named honestly
The audited plan seeds case families beyond the named cases above. They are QUEUES: no case in a queue is quoted, treated, or implied loaded.