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.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perillo v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441, 444 (5th Cir. 1996) (petitioner entitled to discovery when there is factual dispute which, if resolved in petitioner’s favor, would entitle petitioner to relief, and the State has not afforded petitioner a full and fair evidentiary hearing). 2015See, e.g., Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441, 444 (5th Cir. 1996) (petitioner entitled to discovery when there is factual dispute which, if resolved in petitioner’s favor, would entitle petitioner to relief, and the State has not afforded petitioner a full and fair evidentiary hearing). | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Davilagreen2 sentences2005See id .; see also Ex parte Davila , 530 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex. Crim. 2005See id.; see also Ex parte Davila, 530 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
In Re COSgreen2 sentences2005However, juvenile cases are quasi-criminal in nature, see In re C.O.S. , 988 S.W.2d 760, 765 (Tex. 1999), and we find some guidance in the legislature's guidelines for evidentiary hearings in articles 11.07 and 11.071. 2005However, juvenile cases are quasi-criminal in nature, see In re C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d 760, 765 (Tex. 1999), and we find some guidance in the legislature’s guidelines for evidentiary hearings in articles 11.07 and 11.071. | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012See Manzi, 88 S.W.3d at 241 ; see also Ex parte Deckard, 2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (setting forth the requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel). 7 No. 05-08-01555-CR, 2009 WL 1887327 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jun 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[T]he trial court was not required to believe the self-serving statements contained in the affidavits of appellant and his father, even if uncontroverted.”). 2012See Manzi, 88 S.W.3d at 241 ; see also Ex parte Deckard, 2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (setting forth the requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel). 7 No. 05-08-01555-CR, 2009 WL 1887327 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jun 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[T]he trial court was not required to believe the self-serving statements contained in the affidavits of appellant and his father, even if uncontroverted.”). | 1 | 2 |
Steadman v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The Applicant did, in his "SUBSEQUENT REQUEST`FOR A LIVE EVI- DENTIARY HEARING;...UNRESOLVED FACTS PERTAINING TO GROUNDS #l~4..."(on p.2-3 of 5) seek a hearing to, inter alia',)ob- tain factual information from judge Phillip Vick-as to "why did he fail to abide by the dictates of 'WALLER' & 'PRESLEY' As stated above the Applicant has filed motions objecting to the lack of a live evidentiary hearing. lf one takes place in the future Applicant has the right reserved to alter, amend/ or supplement these proposed findings; Although legally a trial court's subjective reasons for not` performing the | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2015The Applicant has "made a reasonable_attempt, in light of the information available at the time, to investigate and pursue claims in state court.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 435 (2000)(Michael Williams). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Ghahremanigreen2 sentences2015See Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W. 3d 470, 474-476 (Tex.Crim.App.201l)(Similar issue resolved by way of the live evidentiary hearing).- The Applicant literally begs this honorable court for a live evidentiary hearing in this matter. 2015See Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W. 3d 470, 474-476 (Tex.Crim.App.201l)(Similar issue resolved by way of the live evidentiary hearing).- The Applicant literally begs this honorable court for a live evidentiary hearing in this matter. | 1 | 1 |
Cate v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Cate v. State, 124 SW3d 922, 928 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2004, pet. ref"d). | 1 | 1 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.green1 sentence2015The Applicant did, in his "SUBSEQUENT REQUEST`FOR A LIVE EVI- DENTIARY HEARING;...UNRESOLVED FACTS PERTAINING TO GROUNDS #l~4..."(on p.2-3 of 5) seek a hearing to, inter alia',)ob- tain factual information from judge Phillip Vick-as to "why did he fail to abide by the dictates of 'WALLER' & 'PRESLEY' As stated above the Applicant has filed motions objecting to the lack of a live evidentiary hearing. lf one takes place in the future Applicant has the right reserved to alter, amend/ or supplement these proposed findings; Although legally a trial court's subjective reasons for not` performing the | 1 | 1 |
Manzi v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Manzi, 88 S.W.3d at 241 ; see also Ex parte Deckard, 2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (setting forth the requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel). 7 No. 05-08-01555-CR, 2009 WL 1887327 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jun 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[T]he trial court was not required to believe the self-serving statements contained in the affidavits of appellant and his father, even if uncontroverted.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Reed
green
2 sentences2015Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. 2015Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Wallace v. State
green
2 sentences2015Wallace, 106 S.W.3d 103 . 2015Wallace, 106 S.W.3d 103 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Ex Parte Elizondo
green
2 sentences2005Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). 2005Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Presley v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2015The Applicant did, in his "SUBSEQUENT REQUEST`FOR A LIVE EVI- DENTIARY HEARING;...UNRESOLVED FACTS PERTAINING TO GROUNDS #l~4..."(on p.2-3 of 5) seek a hearing to, inter alia',)ob- tain factual information from judge Phillip Vick-as to "why did he fail to abide by the dictates of 'WALLER' & 'PRESLEY' As stated above the Applicant has filed motions objecting to the lack of a live evidentiary hearing. lf one takes place in the future Applicant has the right reserved to alter, amend/ or supplement these proposed findings; Although legally a trial court's subjective reasons for not` performing the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ex Parte Byars
green
1 sentence2015This was recognized as true by Presiding Judge Keller in her concurring opinion in Ex Parte Byars, 176 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ex Parte Tovar
green
1 sentence2008Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
1 sentence2004See Hall , __ S.W.3d at ___ (Price, J., concurring) (noting that "generally, for the review of a contested Atkins v. Virginia claim, the trial court will need to hold a live hearing and not base its decision solely on affidavits submitted by the parties"); id. at ___, (Johnson, J., dissenting) (noting that "[n]o trier of fact in this case has ever heard live testimony, subject to testing or cross-examination, on the specific issue of whether appellant is mentally retarded"); and id . at __ (Holcomb, J., dissenting) (noting that capital murder defendant "was not provided with a live evidentiary | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.