I'll try to explain your example: In the proof of $\lim_{\theta\to 0}\frac{\sin\theta}\theta$ we prove first that $\lim_{\theta\to0^+}$ exists by having a restriction like $0<\theta\leq 1$ (insert your favourite proof here, as long as it's not l'Hopital). Then after that we use a second restriction, like $-1\leq \theta<0$ to prove that $\lim_{\theta\to 0^-}$ exists by exploiting $\sin\theta = -\sin(-\theta)$ and $\cos\theta = \cos(-\theta)$:
$$
\cos\theta < \frac{\sin\theta}\theta<1\\
\cos(-\theta)<\frac{-\sin(-\theta)}{\theta} < 1\\
\cos(-\theta)<\frac{\sin(-\theta)}{-\theta} < 1\\
$$
and then, setting $\phi = -\theta$, we have the restriction $0<\phi \leq 1$ and the inequality $\cos(\phi)<\frac{\sin(\phi)}{\phi} < 1$, which we know is true by the first case.
In other words, if someone set up restrictions like that, found a limit under that restriction, and then doesn't mention the restriction again, then that's bad practice. But it's also a sign that the other cases are either proven completely analoguously or that they are relatively easily transformed into the proven case. Or at least that the author of the proof thought so.