green
Positive treatment
4.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Martinez v. State
(2×)
See Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 564 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 437 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998); Fisher v. State, 379 S.W.2d 900, 902 (Tex.Cr.App. 1964) (decided under former law set out in Article 726); Searcy v. State, 28 Tex.App. 513 , 13 S.W. 782 (Tex.Ct.App.1890).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. State
See Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 549 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 437 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998). . 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). .
discussed
Cited "see"
American Express Centurion Bank v. Truong (In Re Truong)
Accord Rembert v. AT & T Universal Card Services, Inc. (In re Rembert), 141 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 438 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998); Anastas v. American Savings Bank (In re Anastas), 94 F.3d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cassell v. Cassell
See Rembert v. AT & T Universal Card Servs., Inc. (In re Rembert), 141 F.3d 277, 280 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 438 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998); Nicholson v. Isaacman (In re Isaacman), 26 F.3d 629, 631 (6th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lind-Waldock & Co. v. Morehead
See Rembert v. AT & T Universal Card Sews., Inc. (In re Rembert), 141 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 438 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998); Citibank (S.D.), N.A v. Eashai (In re Eashai), 87 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir.1996); see also Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 69 , 116 S.Ct. 437 , 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) (concluding that elements of § 523(a)(2) incorporate the general common law of torts).
cited
Cited "see"
Medina v. State
See Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 437 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998); Gass v. State, 785 S.W.2d 834, 836-37 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1990, no pet).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lentz v. Spadoni
See, e.g., In re Rembert 141 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 438 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter Of: Constance P. Mercer, Debtor. At&t Universal Card Services v. Constance P. Mercer
See, e.g., Rembert v. AT&T Universal Card Servs., Inc. (In re Rembert), 141 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir.) (use of credit card is implied representation of intent, but not ability, to repay), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 438 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998); Anastas v. American Sav.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rocha v. State
(2×)
Compare Pannell v. State, 666 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)(disciplinary rule) to Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 553-554 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 437 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998)(attorney-client privilege).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Advanta National Bank v. Kong (In Re Kong)
Id.; see also Rembert v. AT & T Universal Card Serv., Inc. (In re Rembert), 141 F.3d 277, 282 (6th Cir.1998) (recognizing that a debtor’s admission that her belief that she would win enough to repay the creditor was objectively unreasonable was only relevant to the extent that it indicated her intention not to repay her creditor), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 438 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McVicker (In Re McVicker)
See, e.g., Rembert v. AT&T Universal Card Servs., Inc., 141 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir.1998) (reasoning that use of credit card represents either actual or implied intent to repay debt incurred) cert. denied , — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 438 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998); Anastas v. American Savs.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE INSURANCE FUND
v.
Kenneth G.M. MATHER, Trustee for the Estate of Southern Star Foods, Inc.
v.
Kenneth G.M. MATHER, Trustee for the Estate of Southern Star Foods, Inc.
No. 98-310.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 2, 1998.
Published
Motion of National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.