7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bates v. State Bar of Arizonagreen2 sentences1980On the subject of overbreadth attacks on regulation of commercial speech, the Supreme Court noted in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 , 462 n. 20, 98 S.Ct. 1912 , 1922 n. 20, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978): “Nor could appellant make a successful overbreadth argument in view of the Court’s observation in Bates [v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977)] that ‘the justification for the application of overbreadth analysis applies weakly, if at all, in the ordinary commercial context.’ 433 U.S., at 380 [ 97 S.Ct., at 2707 ]. 1980On the subject of overbreadth attacks on regulation of commercial speech, the Supreme Court noted in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 , 462 n. 20, 98 S.Ct. 1912 , 1922 n. 20, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978): “Nor could appellant make a successful overbreadth argument in view of the Court’s observation in Bates [v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977)] that ‘the justification for the application of overbreadth analysis applies weakly, if at all, in the ordinary commercial context.’ 433 U.S., at 380 [ 97 S.Ct., at 2707 ]. | 2 | 4 |
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Buttongreen2 sentences2015But we are not confronted with the question of whether a claim confers standing sufficient to allow the individual to appear in court. 42 SeeDickerson v. UnitedStates, 530 U.S. 428,438 (2000) (holding that "first and foremost of the factors" supporting the conclusion that"Miranda is a constitutional decision" is that the case applied the rule to "prosecutions arising in state courts"); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415,432-33 (1961) (recognizing the application of overbreadth doctrine to state laws and explaining that, "[bjecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government 2015But we are not confronted with the question of whether a claim confers standing sufficient to allow the individual to appear in court. 42 See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 438 (2000) (holding that “first and foremost of the factors” supporting the conclusion that “Miranda is a constitutional decision” is that the case applied the rule to “prosecutions arising in state courts”); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 (1961) (recognizing the application of overbreadth doctrine to state laws and explaining that, “[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, gover | 2 | 2 |
Dickerson v. United Statesred2 sentences2015But we are not confronted with the question of whether a claim confers standing sufficient to allow the individual to appear in court. 42 SeeDickerson v. UnitedStates, 530 U.S. 428,438 (2000) (holding that "first and foremost of the factors" supporting the conclusion that"Miranda is a constitutional decision" is that the case applied the rule to "prosecutions arising in state courts"); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415,432-33 (1961) (recognizing the application of overbreadth doctrine to state laws and explaining that, "[bjecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government 2015But we are not confronted with the question of whether a claim confers standing sufficient to allow the individual to appear in court. 42 See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 438 (2000) (holding that “first and foremost of the factors” supporting the conclusion that “Miranda is a constitutional decision” is that the case applied the rule to “prosecutions arising in state courts”); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 (1961) (recognizing the application of overbreadth doctrine to state laws and explaining that, “[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, gover | 2 | 2 |
State v. Klimagreen2 sentences2015But we are not confronted with the question of whether a claim confers standing sufficient to allow the individual to appear in court. 42 SeeDickerson v. UnitedStates, 530 U.S. 428,438 (2000) (holding that "first and foremost of the factors" supporting the conclusion that"Miranda is a constitutional decision" is that the case applied the rule to "prosecutions arising in state courts"); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415,432-33 (1961) (recognizing the application of overbreadth doctrine to state laws and explaining that, "[bjecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government 2015But we are not confronted with the question of whether a claim confers standing sufficient to allow the individual to appear in court. 42 See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 438 (2000) (holding that “first and foremost of the factors” supporting the conclusion that “Miranda is a constitutional decision” is that the case applied the rule to “prosecutions arising in state courts”); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 (1961) (recognizing the application of overbreadth doctrine to state laws and explaining that, “[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, gover | 2 | 2 |
Minnesota v. Olsongreen1 sentence2015App. 1996) (recognizing that “the application of Fourth Amendment rights are personal in nature and are invariably intertwined with the concept of standing”). 44 See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Rakas v. Illinoisgreen1 sentence2015But we are not confronted with the question of whether a claim confers standing sufficient to allow the individual to appear in court. 42 See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 438 (2000) (holding that “first and foremost of the factors” supporting the conclusion that “Miranda is a constitutional decision” is that the case applied the rule to “prosecutions arising in state courts”); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 432-33 (1961) (recognizing the application of overbreadth doctrine to state laws and explaining that, “[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, gover | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2011Garcia, 823 S.W.2d at 797 (citing Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 380 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977)). 2011Garcia, 823 S.W.2d at 797 (citing Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 380 (1977)). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Mauricio Rodriguez Celis v. State
green
1 sentence2018Celis, 354 S.W.3d at 32 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.
green
2 sentences1980On the subject of overbreadth attacks on regulation of commercial speech, the Supreme Court noted in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 , 462 n. 20, 98 S.Ct. 1912 , 1922 n. 20, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978): “Nor could appellant make a successful overbreadth argument in view of the Court’s observation in Bates [v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977)] that ‘the justification for the application of overbreadth analysis applies weakly, if at all, in the ordinary commercial context.’ 433 U.S., at 380 [ 97 S.Ct., at 2707 ]. 1980On the subject of overbreadth attacks on regulation of commercial speech, the Supreme Court noted in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447 , 462 n. 20, 98 S.Ct. 1912 , 1922 n. 20, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978): “Nor could appellant make a successful overbreadth argument in view of the Court’s observation in Bates [v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977)] that ‘the justification for the application of overbreadth analysis applies weakly, if at all, in the ordinary commercial context.’ 433 U.S., at 380 [ 97 S.Ct., at 2707 ]. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.