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.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caldwell v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2011See Caldwell II, 154 S.W.3d at 96 . 2011See Caldwell II, 154 S.W.3d at 96 . | 3 | 3 |
Menefee v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Menefee v. State , 287 S.W.3d 9 , 12 n.12 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Jackson v. State , 548 S.W.2d 685, 697 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Minnesota v. Murphy
green
1 sentence2013As explained in Murphy: If the State, either expressly or by implication, asserts that invocation of the privilege would lead to revocation of probation, it would have created the classic penalty situation, the failure to assert the privilege would be excused, and the probationer’s answers would be deemed compelled and inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. 20 Id. at 435 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ex Parte Taylor
green
1 sentence1973In the 1970 case In re Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 475 P.2d 841 , the Supreme Court of California said: “Thus we have concluded that Leary v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. 6 , 84 S.Ct. 1532 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 57 ], is retroactive to the extent that a petitioner suffering a sentence augmented by a prior conviction as to which Leary established a complete defense may attack that prior conviction collaterally, and that the right to such an attack is not waived either by a failure to assert the defense against self-incrimination or by a guilty plea prior to the decision in that case.” Se | 1 | 1973–1973 |
In Re Johnson
green
2 sentences1973In the 1970 case In re Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 475 P.2d 841 , the Supreme Court of California said: “Thus we have concluded that Leary v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. 6 , 84 S.Ct. 1532 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 57 ], is retroactive to the extent that a petitioner suffering a sentence augmented by a prior conviction as to which Leary established a complete defense may attack that prior conviction collaterally, and that the right to such an attack is not waived either by a failure to assert the defense against self-incrimination or by a guilty plea prior to the decision in that case.” Se 1973In the 1970 case In re Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 475 P.2d 841 , the Supreme Court of California said: “Thus we have concluded that Leary v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. 6 , 84 S.Ct. 1532 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 57 ], is retroactive to the extent that a petitioner suffering a sentence augmented by a prior conviction as to which Leary established a complete defense may attack that prior conviction collaterally, and that the right to such an attack is not waived either by a failure to assert the defense against self-incrimination or by a guilty plea prior to the decision in that case.” Se | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Leary v. United States
green
2 sentences1973In the 1970 case In re Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 475 P.2d 841 , the Supreme Court of California said: “Thus we have concluded that Leary v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. 6 , 84 S.Ct. 1532 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 57 ], is retroactive to the extent that a petitioner suffering a sentence augmented by a prior conviction as to which Leary established a complete defense may attack that prior conviction collaterally, and that the right to such an attack is not waived either by a failure to assert the defense against self-incrimination or by a guilty plea prior to the decision in that case.” Se 1973In the 1970 case In re Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 475 P.2d 841 , the Supreme Court of California said: “Thus we have concluded that Leary v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. 6 , 84 S.Ct. 1532 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 57 ], is retroactive to the extent that a petitioner suffering a sentence augmented by a prior conviction as to which Leary established a complete defense may attack that prior conviction collaterally, and that the right to such an attack is not waived either by a failure to assert the defense against self-incrimination or by a guilty plea prior to the decision in that case.” Se | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Harris v. Matthews
neutral
1 sentence1924Moore v. Moore, 89 Tex. 29 , 33 S. W. 217 ; Harris v. Matthews, 36 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Moore Son v. Moore
green
2 sentences1924Moore v. Moore, 89 Tex. 29 , 33 S. W. 217 ; Harris v. Matthews, 36 Tex. Civ. 1924Moore v. Moore, 89 Tex. 29 , 33 S. W. 217 ; Harris v. Matthews, 36 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.