Case Citator › Neal v. State

Neal v. State

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Citation
256 S.W.3d 264
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
56 of 56
Citing cases (total)
56
Treatment dates
2017
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Neal v. State is abrogated as to its approval of Texas's former Briseno framework for deciding intellectual-disability claims in capital cases. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Moore v. Texas that the nonclinical Briseno factors may not be used to restrict who qualifies as intellectually disabled.
More on how this was screened

All 56 flagged citations have been read; no other adverse treatment was confirmed. Later courts continued to use Neal's holdings on evidence review, search and seizure, and preservation of error. The citing-opinion count uses the 56-citation floor. One citing opinion appeared twice among the flagged citations. The full text of State v. Dunn did not mention Neal. Most nearby uses of “overruled” rejected the appellant's issue, rather than Neal.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

56 later cases cite Neal v. State; 56 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Neal v. State?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • Moore v. Texas foreclosed Neal's holding that Texas could keep applying the Briseno framework to capital intellectual-disability claims.

    Moore v. Texas · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Not aligned with the medical community’s information, and drawing no strength from our precedent, the Briseno factors “creat[e] an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed,” 572 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1). Accordingly, they may not be used, as the CCA used them, to restrict qualification of an individual as intellectually disabled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Neal v. State and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace