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.
10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Felixgreen2 sentences2009We therefore accept the Government’s invitation to overrule Grady.”) (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 390-91 , 112 S.Ct. 1377 , 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992) (criticizing Grady as difficult to apply); Sharpton v. Turner, 964 F.2d 1284, 1287 (2d Cir.1992) (noting that Grady test “has proven difficult to apply”); Ladner v. Smith, 941 F.2d 356, 362-64 (5th Cir.1991) (setting out the complicated steps that the test in Grady required courts to undertake); see also Anne Bowen Poulin, Double Jeopardy Protection Against Successive Prosecution in Complex Criminal Cases: A Mo 2009We therefore accept the Government’s invitation to overrule Grady.”) (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 390-91 , 112 S.Ct. 1377 , 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992) (criticizing Grady as difficult to apply); Sharpton v. Turner, 964 F.2d 1284, 1287 (2d Cir.1992) (noting that Grady test “has proven difficult to apply”); Ladner v. Smith, 941 F.2d 356, 362-64 (5th Cir.1991) (setting out the complicated steps that the test in Grady required courts to undertake); see also Anne Bowen Poulin, Double Jeopardy Protection Against Successive Prosecution in Complex Criminal Cases: A Mo | 3 | 3 |
Thomas E. Ladner v. J.B. Smith, Sheriff, Smith County, Texas, 1green2 sentences2009We therefore accept the Government’s invitation to overrule Grady.”) (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 390-91 , 112 S.Ct. 1377 , 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992) (criticizing Grady as difficult to apply); Sharpton v. Turner, 964 F.2d 1284, 1287 (2d Cir.1992) (noting that Grady test “has proven difficult to apply”); Ladner v. Smith, 941 F.2d 356, 362-64 (5th Cir.1991) (setting out the complicated steps that the test in Grady required courts to undertake); see also Anne Bowen Poulin, Double Jeopardy Protection Against Successive Prosecution in Complex Criminal Cases: A Mo 2009We therefore accept the Government's invitation to overrule Grady . ") (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Felix , 503 U.S. 378, 390-91 (1992) (criticizing Grady as difficult to apply); Sharpton v. Turner , 964 F.2d 1284, 1287 (2d Cir. 1992) (noting that Grady test "has proven difficult to apply"); Ladner v. Smith , 941 F.2d 356, 362-64 (5th Cir. 1992) (setting out the complicated steps that the test in Grady required courts to undertake); see also Anne Bowen Poulin, Double Jeopardy Protection Against Successive Prosecution in Complex Criminal Cases: A Model , 25 Conn. L. | 3 | 3 |
Alfred C. Sharpton v. Hon. John C. Turner Jr., Albany County Judge Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2009We therefore accept the Government’s invitation to overrule Grady.”) (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 390-91 , 112 S.Ct. 1377 , 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992) (criticizing Grady as difficult to apply); Sharpton v. Turner, 964 F.2d 1284, 1287 (2d Cir.1992) (noting that Grady test “has proven difficult to apply”); Ladner v. Smith, 941 F.2d 356, 362-64 (5th Cir.1991) (setting out the complicated steps that the test in Grady required courts to undertake); see also Anne Bowen Poulin, Double Jeopardy Protection Against Successive Prosecution in Complex Criminal Cases: A Mo 2009We therefore accept the Government's invitation to overrule Grady . ") (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Felix , 503 U.S. 378, 390-91 (1992) (criticizing Grady as difficult to apply); Sharpton v. Turner , 964 F.2d 1284, 1287 (2d Cir. 1992) (noting that Grady test "has proven difficult to apply"); Ladner v. Smith , 941 F.2d 356, 362-64 (5th Cir. 1992) (setting out the complicated steps that the test in Grady required courts to undertake); see also Anne Bowen Poulin, Double Jeopardy Protection Against Successive Prosecution in Complex Criminal Cases: A Model , 25 Conn. L. | 3 | 3 |
Grady v. Corbinred2 sentences1993The sole question in Dixon was “Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution of a defendant on substantive criminal charges based upon the same conduct for which he previously has been held in criminal contempt of court.” Dixon , ■— U.S. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2854 . 10 .The Grady test provides: "[I]f, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted[,]” a second prosecution may not be had. 495 U.S. at 510 , 110 S.Ct. at 2087 , 109 L.Ed.2d at 557 . 1993The sole question in Dixon was “Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution of a defendant on substantive criminal charges based upon the same conduct for which he previously has been held in criminal contempt of court.” Dixon , ■— U.S. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2854 . 10 .The Grady test provides: "[I]f, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted[,]” a second prosecution may not be had. 495 U.S. at 510 , 110 S.Ct. at 2087 , 109 L.Ed.2d at 557 . | 1 | 4 |
Mansions in the Forest, L.P. v. Montgomery Countygreen1 sentence2020She thus failed to preserve her complaints for appeal.5 See Seim, 551 S.W.3d at 162–63, 166 (concluding that lack of notary’s signature was a formal defect that had to be objected to and ruled on by the trial court to preserve error); Mansions in the Forest, 365 S.W.3d at 317 (holding that because record lacked any indication that purported affidavit was sworn to by the 5 To the extent that Grady’s challenge to the Loll affidavit can be construed as raising an independent argument that the exhibits attached to the affidavit were not properly authenticated as business records, that objection al | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richard Seim and Linda Seim v. Allstate Texas Lloyds and Lisa Scott
green
1 sentence2020She thus failed to preserve her complaints for appeal.5 See Seim, 551 S.W.3d at 162–63, 166 (concluding that lack of notary’s signature was a formal defect that had to be objected to and ruled on by the trial court to preserve error); Mansions in the Forest, 365 S.W.3d at 317 (holding that because record lacked any indication that purported affidavit was sworn to by the 5 To the extent that Grady’s challenge to the Loll affidavit can be construed as raising an independent argument that the exhibits attached to the affidavit were not properly authenticated as business records, that objection al | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences1993However, the Supreme Court recently overruled that portion of the Grady analysis, stating that unlike the Blockburger test, the “same conduct” test “lacks constitutional roots.” United States v. Dixon, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2852 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). 1993However, the Supreme Court recently overruled that portion of the Grady analysis, stating that unlike the Blockburger test, the “same conduct” test “lacks constitutional roots.” United States v. Dixon, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2852 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Marshall
green
2 sentences1992Utilizing a Grady analysis, the appellate court held “Unless the State is required to prove every element of DWI, including Marshall’s intoxication, as a prerequisite to a conviction in the FSRA charge, the successive prosecutions are not for the ‘same offense.’ ” Marshall, 814 S.W.2d at 796 . 1992Utilizing a Grady analysis, the appellate court held “Unless the State is required to prove every element of DWI, including Marshall’s intoxication, as a prerequisite to a conviction in the FSRA charge, the successive prosecutions are not for the ‘same offense.’ ” Marshall, 814 S.W.2d at 796 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Remsing
green
2 sentences1992In State v. Remsing, 829 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d), the court found a defendant’s conviction for failure to drive in a single marked lane did not bar his prosecution for driving while intoxicated. 1992In State v. Remsing, 829 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d), the court found a defendant’s conviction for failure to drive in a single marked lane did not bar his prosecution for driving while intoxicated. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.