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 3 courts 1993–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
in Re Commitment of Jeffery Lee Stoddardgreen1 sentence2023See Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d at 678. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Brewstergreen1 sentence2015This interpretation is consistent with the Speech or Debate Clause protecting Members from civil liability, but is not the type of absolute protection posited by the Appellant. 135 Id. at 915 . 136 Id. 137 United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). 138 Brewster, 408 U.S. at 501. 51 Appellant may respond that the crime of bribery is different than Abuse of Official Capacity or Coercion of a Public Servant, and that Mutscher should be read to restrict the Speech or Debate privilege only to bribery offenses. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2008App. 1986). 66 Strickland, 466 U.S., at 687 ; Bone v. State, 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex. Cr. 2008Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are analyzed using the standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington to determine “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”64 In Hernandez v. State, this court adopted the Strickland standard for ineffective-assistance cases, stating that neither Texas’ constitution nor its statutory provisions established a more protective standard than that set forth in Strickland.65 To prevail on these claims, | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are analyzed using the standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington to determine “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”64 In Hernandez v. State, this court adopted the Strickland standard for ineffective-assistance cases, stating that neither Texas’ constitution nor its statutory provisions established a more protective standard than that set forth in Strickland.65 To prevail on these claims, | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. Rock Against Racismgreen2 sentences1993The eventual, unfortunate repudiation of this protective standard by the United States Supreme Court in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798-99 , 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2757-58 , 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989), has justifiably met with criticism. 11 By now merely requiring that the means chosen “promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effec tively ” otherwise, id. at 799 , 109 S.Ct. at 2758 (emphasis supplied), that Court tolerates rather substantial adverse effects on speech if masked as directed to some purported goal other than suppression. 1993The eventual, unfortunate repudiation of this protective standard by the United States Supreme Court in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798-99 , 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2757-58 , 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989), has justifiably met with criticism. 11 By now merely requiring that the means chosen “promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effec tively ” otherwise, id. at 799 , 109 S.Ct. at 2758 (emphasis supplied), that Court tolerates rather substantial adverse effects on speech if masked as directed to some purported goal other than suppression. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2015This interpretation is consistent with the Speech or Debate Clause protecting Members from civil liability, but is not the type of absolute protection posited by the Appellant. 135 Id. at 915 . 136 Id. 137 United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). 138 Brewster, 408 U.S. at 501. 51 Appellant may respond that the crime of bribery is different than Abuse of Official Capacity or Coercion of a Public Servant, and that Mutscher should be read to restrict the Speech or Debate privilege only to bribery offenses. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mutscher v. State
green
2 sentences2015This interpretation is consistent with the Speech or Debate Clause protecting Members from civil liability, but is not the type of absolute protection posited by the Appellant. 135 Id. at 915 . 136 Id. 137 United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). 138 Brewster, 408 U.S. at 501. 51 Appellant may respond that the crime of bribery is different than Abuse of Official Capacity or Coercion of a Public Servant, and that Mutscher should be read to restrict the Speech or Debate privilege only to bribery offenses. 2015This interpretation is consistent with the Speech or Debate Clause protecting Members from civil liability, but is not the type of absolute protection posited by the Appellant. 135 Id. at 915 . 136 Id. 137 United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). 138 Brewster, 408 U.S. at 501. 51 Appellant may respond that the crime of bribery is different than Abuse of Official Capacity or Coercion of a Public Servant, and that Mutscher should be read to restrict the Speech or Debate privilege only to bribery offenses. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2000Accordingly, we review appellant's claims in light of the more protective state standard. [4] Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). [5] Consequently, we need not address, and express no opinion about, the other arguments made by the parties. [6] Here, the trial court postponed its ruling and promised to rule at a later point in trial. 2000Accordingly, we review appellant's claims in light of the more protective state standard. [4] Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). [5] Consequently, we need not address, and express no opinion about, the other arguments made by the parties. [6] Here, the trial court postponed its ruling and promised to rule at a later point in trial. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.