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.
14 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1945–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peebles v. Stategreen2 sentences2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d at 466-67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to 2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d at 466-67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to | 3 | 3 |
Hofman v. Webergreen2 sentences2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d at 466-67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to 2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs , 187 S.W.3d at 466–67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Chandlergreen2 sentences2006Prejudice to the applicant from counsel's deficient performance is judged by "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." Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), quoting Strickland, supra, at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 "As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial." Id. *367 This Court has said that "[v]irtually every fact finding involves a credibility determination" and has "repeatedly 2006Prejudice to the applicant from counsel’s deficient performance is judged by “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.” Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), quoting Strickland, supra, at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 “As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. | 2 | 4 |
Ex Parte Briggsgreen2 sentences2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d at 466-67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to 2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs , 187 S.W.3d at 466–67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to | 1 | 3 |
Gulf Ins. Co. v. James, St. Treas.green2 sentences1971“The purpose of the constitutional requirement is to give notice through the title of the bill, not only to members of the legislature, but to the citizens at large, of the subject-matter of the projected law; and thereby to prevent the surreptitious passage of a law upon one subject under the guise of a title which expresses another.” Adams v. San Angelo Waterworks Co., 86 Tex. 485 , 25 S.W. 605 (1894); Gulf Insurance Co. v. James, 143 Tex. 424 , 185 S.W.2d 966 (1945); Fletcher v. State, 439 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Sup.1969). 1971“The purpose of the constitutional requirement is to give notice through the title of the bill, not only to members of the legislature, but to the citizens at large, of the subject-matter of the projected law; and thereby to prevent the surreptitious passage of a law upon one subject under the guise of a title which expresses another.” Adams v. San Angelo Waterworks Co., 86 Tex. 485 , 25 S.W. 605 (1894); Gulf Insurance Co. v. James, 143 Tex. 424 , 185 S.W.2d 966 (1945); Fletcher v. State, 439 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Sup.1969). | 1 | 2 |
Ex Parte Mowbraygreen2 sentences2006Prejudice to the applicant from counsel's deficient performance is judged by "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." Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), quoting Strickland, supra, at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 "As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial." Id. *367 This Court has said that "[v]irtually every fact finding involves a credibility determination" and has "repeatedly 2006This Court has said that “Virtually every fact finding involves a credibility determination” and has “repeatedly recognized that the fact finder is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses.” Ex parte Mowbray, 943 S.W.2d 461, 465 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006Prejudice to the applicant from counsel’s deficient performance is judged by “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.” Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), quoting Strickland, supra, at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 “As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. 2006Prejudice to the applicant from counsel’s deficient performance is judged by “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.” Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), quoting Strickland, supra, at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 “As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. | 5 | 2006–2008 |
Ex Parte Amezquita
green
2 sentences2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d at 466-67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to 2009“As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial.” Id. (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds because trial counsel failed to investigate evidence involving the complainant’s cell phone and trial counsel’s deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial could not be relied on as having produced a just result); Ex parte Briggs , 187 S.W.3d at 466–67 (granting habeas relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because trial counsel failed to | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Adams & Wickes v. San Angelo Water Works Co.
green
2 sentences1973“The purpose of the constitutional requirement is to give notice through the title of the bill, not only to members of the legislature, but to the citizens at large, of the subject-matter of the projected law; and thereby to prevent the surreptitious passage of a law upon one subject under the guise of a title which expresses another.” Adams & Wickes v. San Angelo Water Works Co., 86 Tex. 485, 487 , 25 S.W. 605, 606 . 1973“The purpose of the constitutional requirement is to give notice through the title of the bill, not only to members of the legislature, but to the citizens at large, of the subject-matter of the projected law; and thereby to prevent the surreptitious passage of a law upon one subject under the guise of a title which expresses another.” Adams & Wickes v. San Angelo Water Works Co., 86 Tex. 485, 487 , 25 S.W. 605, 606 . | 3 | 1945–1973 |
Mercer v. State
green
2 sentences1973When the validity of legislation is challenged under this constitutional provision, the courts give a liberal construction to the title of the act and attempt to uphold its validity “to avoid serious embarrassment of legislation,” Mercer v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 657 , 13 S.W.2d 689, 691 ; however, “the rule of liberal construction will not be followed to the extent that it will relieve the legislature of the necessity of *111 disclosing the real subject of the Act in the title thereof, nor will it be extended so as to hold Acts valid, the titles of which are deceptive or misleading as to the re 1973When the validity of legislation is challenged under this constitutional provision, the courts give a liberal construction to the title of the act and attempt to uphold its validity “to avoid serious embarrassment of legislation,” Mercer v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 657 , 13 S.W.2d 689, 691 ; however, “the rule of liberal construction will not be followed to the extent that it will relieve the legislature of the necessity of *111 disclosing the real subject of the Act in the title thereof, nor will it be extended so as to hold Acts valid, the titles of which are deceptive or misleading as to the re | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Fletcher v. State
green
1 sentence1971“The purpose of the constitutional requirement is to give notice through the title of the bill, not only to members of the legislature, but to the citizens at large, of the subject-matter of the projected law; and thereby to prevent the surreptitious passage of a law upon one subject under the guise of a title which expresses another.” Adams v. San Angelo Waterworks Co., 86 Tex. 485 , 25 S.W. 605 (1894); Gulf Insurance Co. v. James, 143 Tex. 424 , 185 S.W.2d 966 (1945); Fletcher v. State, 439 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Sup.1969). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. v. State
green
2 sentences1948San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. State, 128 Tex. 33 , 95 S.W.2d 680 . 1948San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. State, 128 Tex. 33 , 95 S.W.2d 680 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Underwriters v. Kirby Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1945App.), 267 S. W. 703, 705 , as follows: “To advise the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill,' so as .to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be engrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination, *432 upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of" which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.” Other authorities state the purpose of such a requirement as follows: “The purpose of the constitutional requirement is to give notice throu | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.