Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Stumesgreen2 sentences1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 | 1 | 1 |
Desist v. United Statesyellow2 sentences1991These holdings respecting the retroactivity of the Batson rule adopt the twofold approach suggested by Justice Harlan in his dissent in Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 256 , 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1037 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248, 259 (1969), and represent the current viewpoint of the Supreme Court respecting retroactivity — a new rule will apply to all future cases, the case announcing the rule, and all cases then pending on direct review or not yet final, but not to the collateral review of cases which were final before the new rule was announced. 1991These holdings respecting the retroactivity of the Batson rule adopt the twofold approach suggested by Justice Harlan in his dissent in Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 256 , 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1037 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248, 259 (1969), and represent the current viewpoint of the Supreme Court respecting retroactivity — a new rule will apply to all future cases, the case announcing the rule, and all cases then pending on direct review or not yet final, but not to the collateral review of cases which were final before the new rule was announced. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2014Miller , 132 S. Ct. at 2464 . 41. 2014Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2464 . . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences2000Nevertheless, the Court recognized that the holding in its cases would always apply to the parties in the case in which the rule is announced, because “constitutional adjudications [do] not stand as mere dictum.” Id. at 301 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 According to the Court, “sound policies of decision-making” required that it “resolve issues solely in concrete cases or controversies,” and applying a new rule in the case announcing the rule is necessary to give counsel incentive “to advance contentions requiring a change in the law.” Id. 2000Nevertheless, the Court recognized that the holding in its cases would always apply to the parties in the case in which the rule is announced, because “constitutional adjudications [do] not stand as mere dictum.” Id. at 301 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 According to the Court, “sound policies of decision-making” required that it “resolve issues solely in concrete cases or controversies,” and applying a new rule in the case announcing the rule is necessary to give counsel incentive “to advance contentions requiring a change in the law.” Id. | 2 | 1991–2000 |
Teague v. Lane
red
1 sentence2014Notwithstanding its finality, the Supreme Court of the United States in effect retroactively applied Miller and vacated Jackson’s sentence. '[0]nce a new rule is applied to the defendant in the case announcing the rule, evenhanded justice requires that it be applied retroactively to all who are similarly situated.'") (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 300, 109 S.Ct. 1060 ). . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
DeStefano v. Woods
yellow
2 sentences1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Fuller v. Alaska
green
2 sentences1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Johnson v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Linkletter v. Walker
red
2 sentences1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Johnson
yellow
2 sentences1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Peltier
green
2 sentences1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 1991See generally Annot., Supreme Court Decisions—Retroactivity, 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969) (collecting and analyzing United States Supreme Court cases in which the court has expressed its views as to the retroactive effect of its own decisions announcing new rules). [14] The Court has "drawn the retroactivity line in a variety of places," as detailed in Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 650-651 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-46 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984): Some decisions have been applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final when the new rule was established, United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Cannon v. Willis
neutral
1 sentence1952In the original case announcing this doctrine, Sorrell v. Stone, supra, and in the cases cited by the appellee, Bell v. Bell, supra, and in Cannon v. Willis, Tex.Civ.App., 130 S. W.2d 920 , by this court, the attempted appeal from a probate judgment in a county court without introducing any evidence was by a litigant who had filed a suit himself to set aside and cancel an order or judgment probating a will. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.