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 1975–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
CF v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See id. 2008See id. | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2016VAGUENESS CHALLENGE Appellant’s second issue asserts that section 1.015 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because the definition of “residence” is fatally ambiguous and encourages arbitrary enforcement of the penal law in violation of appellant’s right to due process under the state and federal constitutions.7 A. Standard of Review We “construe a statute according to its plain language, unless the language is ambiguous or the interpretation would lead to absurd results that the legislature could not have intended.” Williams v. State, 253 S.W.3d 673, 677 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of JRCgreen1 sentence2006See In re J.R.C. , 551 S.W.2d 748, 754 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of WLCgreen1 sentence1982In the Matter of W.L.C., 562 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mav Jr. v. Webb Cty. Court at Law
green
2 sentences1996Code Ann. 53.04(d)(1) (Vernon 1996); M.A.V., Jr., 842 S.W.2d at 745 . 1996Code Ann. 53.04(d)(1) (Vernon 1996); M.A.V., Jr., 842 S.W.2d at 745 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
In Re GAULT
red
2 sentences1990Section 53.04(d)(1) is set out as follows: (d) The petition must state: (1) with reasonable particularity the time, place, and manner of the acts alleged and the penal law or standard of conduct allegedly violated by the acts Furthermore, the landmark case on juvenile justice, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), sets out the standard on “notice” requirements. 1990Section 53.04(d)(1) is set out as follows: (d) The petition must state: (1) with reasonable particularity the time, place, and manner of the acts alleged and the penal law or standard of conduct allegedly violated by the acts Furthermore, the landmark case on juvenile justice, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), sets out the standard on “notice” requirements. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Coffey v. State
green
2 sentences1975In Coffey v. State, 500 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), we wrote: “This Court has recently held that where the motion to revoke probation has been filed subsequent to the period of probation the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion and therefore probation may not then be revoked. 1975In Coffey v. State, 500 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Cr.App.1973), we wrote: "This Court has recently held that where the motion to revoke probation has been filed subsequent to the period of probation the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion and therefore probation may not then be revoked. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.