green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.6 score
“an appellate court is in no position to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences or to determine the credibility of witnesses; that function is within the province of the finder of fact”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Martin v. Thomas
an appellate court is in no position to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences or to determine the credibility of witnesses; that function is within the province of the finder of fact
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. State
Hedicke v. State, 779 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1044 , 1Í0 S.Ct. 840, 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grunsfeld v. State
(2×)
Id. at 839, 842. .The Code Construction Act provides that: ‘Includes’ and ‘including’ are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. State
(2×)
See Hedicke v. State, 779 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1044 , 110 S.Ct. 840 , 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990) (stating that personal opinion testimony of a witness who knows the person is one method of proving character).
discussed
Cited "see"
G.M.P., Matter Of
See Hedicke v. State, 779 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1044 , 110 S.Ct. 840 , 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990) (stating that personal opinion testimony of a witness who knows the person is one method of proving character). 7 There are two limitations on the right to cross-examine a character witness about specific instances of a defendant’s conduct.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of GMP
See Hedicke v. State, 779 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1044 , 110 S.Ct. 840 , 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990) (stating that personal opinion testimony of a witness who knows the person is one method of proving character). [7] *210 There are two limitations on the right to cross-examine a character witness about specific instances of a defendant's conduct.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivera-Flores v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co.
See, Utley v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 883 F.2d 184, 185 (1st Cir.1989) (citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver, 415 U.S. 36, 45 , 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1018 , 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) (despite strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, Title VII claims are to be enforced in federal courts)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1045 , 110 S.Ct. 842 , 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Prudential Insurance Co. Of America, a New Jersey Corporation v. Justine Lai Elvira Viernes
(2×)
See, e.g., Utley v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 883 F.2d 184 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1045 , 110 S.Ct. 842 , 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990); EEOC v. Children's Hospital Medical Center, 719 F.2d 1426 , 1431 (9th Cir.1983) (en banc) (court should reach question, and hold that prior consent decree cannot bar later Title VII claims under Alexander) (Fletcher, C.J. concurring).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
See also Pierce v. Commercial Warehouse, 876 F.2d 86, 87 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1045 , 110 S.Ct. 841 , 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990); Barnosky Oils, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 665 F.2d 74, 83 (6th Cir. 1981); FLM Collision Parts, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F.2d 1019, 1024 (2d Cir. 1976); Hiram Walker, Inc. v. A & S Tropical, Inc., 407 F.2d 4, 7 (5th Cir. 1969); Metro Video Dist., Inc. v. Vestron Video, Inc., 1990-1 Trade Cas. ¶ 68 , 986 at 63, 348, 1990 WL 58463 (D.P.R. 1990); Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F.Supp. 791, 845 (D.Minn.1989). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Charlesworth R. Martin v. Theodore Thomas, Milo K. Shepard, Robert L. Prater and L.L. Clarkson
See also, Strauch v. Gates Rubber Co., 879 F.2d 1282, 1285 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1045 , 110 S.Ct. 841 , 107 L.Ed.2d 836 (1990) ("An appellate Court is in no position to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences or to determine the credibility of witnesses; that ’ function is within the province of the finder of fact”); Glass v. Petro-Tex Chemical Corp., 757 F.2d 1554, 1559 (5th Cir.1985) ("[A]n appellate court is not free to reweigh the evidence or to re-evaluate credibility of witnesses or to substitute for the district court's reasonable factual inferences from the evide…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Consumer Value Stores
v.
Board of Pharmacy of New Jersey
v.
Board of Pharmacy of New Jersey
No. 89-801.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 16, 1990.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.