green
Positive treatment
6.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. State
(2×)
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (discussing factors governing admissibility of declarant's statement against interest in trial of non-declarant co-defendant), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000). [3] The majority contends the court's opinion in McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.Crim.
cited
Cited "see"
Deschenes v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert, denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
David Deschenes v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
David Deschenes v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
David Deschenes v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Berkley v. Quarterman
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)("Often the circumstances of the crime provide greater probative evidence of a defendant's probability for committing future acts of violence than any other factor relevant to the future dangerousness special issue.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000); Walbey v. State, 926 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)(holding the facts of the offense alone can support an affirmative answer to the future dangerousness special issue); Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 684-85 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)(holding the …
discussed
Cited "see"
Saldivar v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 744 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cer t. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) (addressing only U.S. Constitution because appellant failed to distinguish rights with Texas Constitution); Hale v. State, 139 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (determining appellant failed to distinguish between U.S. Constitution and Texas Constitution). 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Simmang v. Texas Board of Law Examiners
See Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Laney, 199 F.3d 281, 285-86 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2007 , 146 L.Ed.2d 957 (2000) (“If however, the particular statute has not properly abrogated state sovereign immunity, the plaintiff may nevertheless challenge the actions of the state officials under the Ex parte Young doctrine, for prospective relief’).
discussed
Cited "see"
Larry Dwayne Robinson v. State
See Dewberry v. State , 4 S.W.3d 735, 747 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied , 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000)(holding that the trier of fact is free to believe or disbelieve all or part of testimony given.).
discussed
Cited "see"
McGee v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 755 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), ce rt. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000); Rodda v. State, 926 S.W.2d 375, 376-77 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd).
cited
Cited "see"
Lee Edward Booten AKA Lee Edward Turner AKA Quick v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
McCullough v. State
(2×)
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Tear v. State
See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jamaal Adeem Atif Singletary, A/K/A Jamal Singletary A/K/A Curtis Singletary Jamaal Singletary
See United States v. Rodia, 194 F.3d 465, 469 (3d Cir.1999) (“Our review of the statute’s constitutional *199 ity is plenary, though we must respect Congress’s ample discretion to determine the appropriate exercise of its Commerce Clause authority.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000); accord United States v. One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147, 151 (3d Cir.2000) (en banc) (“Our review over constitutional issues is plenary”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Singletary
See United States v. Rodia, 194 F.3d 465, 469 (3d Cir. 1999) ("Our review of the statute's constitutionality is plenary, though we must respect Congress's ample discretion to determine the appropriate exercise of its Commerce Clause authority."), cert. denied , 529 U.S. 1131 (2000); accord United States v. One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147, 151 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc) ("Our review over constitutional issues is plenary.").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James v. State
Second, corroborating evidence must be shown that is sufficiently convincing to “clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” Id.; see also Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), ce rt. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 , 120 S.Ct. 2008 , 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000); Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
v.
Laney
v.
Laney
No. 99-1610.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 22, 2000.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.