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 1994–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walton v. Arizonared2 sentences2017It might be argued, although we States Supreme Court in Walton v. Arizona affirmatively certainly have no occasion here to hold, that declined to "adopt as a constitutional imperative a rule Subsection (c) implicitly assigns the burden of that would require the court to consider the mitigating proof to the beneficiary of a finding of "sufficient circumstances claimed by a defendant unless the State mitigating . . . circumstances to warrant that a negated [**41] them by a preponderance of the evi- sentence of life . . . be imposed." Cf. Arnold v. dence." 497 U.S. 639, at 650 , 110 S. Ct. 3047, 2017It might be argued, although we States Supreme Court in Walton v. Arizona affirmatively certainly have no occasion here to hold, that declined to "adopt as a constitutional imperative a rule Subsection (c) implicitly assigns the burden of that would require the court to consider the mitigating proof to the beneficiary of a finding of "sufficient circumstances claimed by a defendant unless the State mitigating . . . circumstances to warrant that a negated [**41] them by a preponderance of the evi- sentence of life . . . be imposed." Cf. Arnold v. dence." 497 U.S. 639, at 650 , 110 S. Ct. 3047, | 5 | 5 |
Arnold v. Stategreen1 sentence2017It might be argued, although we States Supreme Court in Walton v. Arizona affirmatively certainly have no occasion here to hold, that declined to "adopt as a constitutional imperative a rule Subsection (c) implicitly assigns the burden of that would require the court to consider the mitigating proof to the beneficiary of a finding of "sufficient circumstances claimed by a defendant unless the State mitigating . . . circumstances to warrant that a negated [**41] them by a preponderance of the evi- sentence of life . . . be imposed." Cf. Arnold v. dence." 497 U.S. 639, at 650 , 110 S. Ct. 3047, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||