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.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Santikos v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“A facial challenge to a statute is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully because the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute will be valid.” Santikos v. State, 836 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex. Crim. 2018It is, therefore, “the most difficult challenge to mount successfully.” Santikos v. State, 836 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State of Texas v. Rosseau, Robert Louisgreen2 sentences2019As such, the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid.” Id.; see Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d at 557 (holding that a party asserting a facial challenge “must establish that the statute always operates unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances”). 2015See French, 830 S.W.2d at Constitutions). 609 (agreeing “appellate court has authority to reform a [trial court] judgment to ... make the record speak the To prevail, the party asserting a facial challenge “must truth when the matter has been called to its attention by establish that the statute always operates any source”); Nolan, 39 S.W.3d at 698 (“An appellate unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances.” court has the power to correct and reform a trial court Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d at 557 . | 1 | 7 |
Horhn v. Stategreen1 sentence2018To prevail, the party asserting a facial challenge “must establish that the statute always operates unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances.” Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d at 557; see Horhn v. State, 481 S.W.3d 363, 372 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Karenev v. Stategreen1 sentence2010A party asserting a facial challenge to a statute seeks to vindicate not only his own rights, but also those of others who may also be adversely impacted by the statute in question.'" See Karenev v. State , 281 S.W.3d 428, 435 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Asberry v. State
green
1 sentence2015When construing a statute, judgment ‘to make the record speak the truth when it has courts consider, among other factors, the object sought to the necessary data and information to do so ....’ ” (quoting be attained by the legislation, laws on the same or similar Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529 )); see also TEX. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.