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 2002–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Markovichgreen2 sentences2010Appellants contend that the Salerno standard no longer applies and instead argue that the test is whether the statute has "plainly legitimate sweep." In State v. Markovich , we recognized that the appropriate standard to apply for facial vagueness challenges was "the subject of debate within the U.S. Supreme Court." 77 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tex. Crim. 2010Appellants contend that the Salerno standard no longer applies and instead argue that the test is whether the statute has "plainly legitimate sweep." In State v. Markovich , we recognized that the appropriate standard to apply for facial vagueness challenges was "the subject of debate within the U.S. Supreme Court." 77 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
City of El Cenizo, Texas v. State of Texasgreen2 sentences2023We agree with the Fifth Circuit that Patel did not “overrule the Salerno standard” or otherwise “lower[] the bar for facial Fourth Amendment challenges.” City of El Cenizo, Tex. v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164, 187 (5th Cir. 2018) (holding “plaintiffs must establish that every seizure authorized by the ICE-detainer mandate violates the Fourth Amendment”). 2023We agree with the Fifth Circuit that Patel did not “overrule the Salerno standard” or otherwise “lower[] the bar for facial Fourth Amendment challenges.” City of El Cenizo, Tex. v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164, 187 (5th Cir. 2018) (holding “plaintiffs must establish that every seizure authorized by the ICE-detainer mandate violates the Fourth Amendment”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Salernogreen2 sentences2002Compare, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (explaining that a facial challenge is the most difficult to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid”), with City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 55 n. 22, 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality opinion) (arguing that the Salerno standard has never been the decisive factor in any case and addressing a facial attack to a statute on the grounds that vagueness permeated the text). 2002Compare, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (explaining that a facial challenge is the most difficult to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid”), with City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 55 n. 22, 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality opinion) (arguing that the Salerno standard has never been the decisive factor in any case and addressing a facial attack to a statute on the grounds that vagueness permeated the text). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Allied Oil Corp.green2 sentences2002Compare, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (explaining that a facial challenge is the most difficult to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid”), with City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 55 n. 22, 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality opinion) (arguing that the Salerno standard has never been the decisive factor in any case and addressing a facial attack to a statute on the grounds that vagueness permeated the text). 2002Compare, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (explaining that a facial challenge is the most difficult to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid”), with City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 55 n. 22, 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality opinion) (arguing that the Salerno standard has never been the decisive factor in any case and addressing a facial attack to a statute on the grounds that vagueness permeated the text). | 1 | 1 |
City of Chicago v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2002Compare, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (explaining that a facial challenge is the most difficult to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid”), with City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 55 n. 22, 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality opinion) (arguing that the Salerno standard has never been the decisive factor in any case and addressing a facial attack to a statute on the grounds that vagueness permeated the text). 2002Compare, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (explaining that a facial challenge is the most difficult to mount successfully since the challenger must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid”), with City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 55 n. 22, 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality opinion) (arguing that the Salerno standard has never been the decisive factor in any case and addressing a facial attack to a statute on the grounds that vagueness permeated the text). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
green
2 sentences2010Our reading of Washington State Grange indicates that the debate has been settled in favor of the Salerno standard, 552 U.S. at 449 , but, as in that case, id. , evaluation of the money laundering statute under the "plainly legitimate sweep" standard would not alter our disposition here. 2010Our reading of Washington State Grange indicates that the debate has been settled in favor of the Salerno standard, 552 U.S. at 449 , but, as in that case, id. , evaluation of the money laundering statute under the "plainly legitimate sweep" standard would not alter our disposition here. | 5 | 2010–2010 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.