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.
7 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1970–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2010See Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 754, 768 , 125 S.Ct. 2796 , 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (2005) (private citizen complainant lacked judicially cognizable property interest in police enforcement of restraining order against complainant’s husband who murdered their three children in violation of the restraining order); Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-86 , 102 S.Ct. 69 , 70 L.Ed.2d 65 (1981) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another); Fuller, 829 S.W.2d at 201 (standing “consists of some interest peculiar to the perso 2010See Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 754, 768 , 125 S.Ct. 2796 , 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (2005) (private citizen complainant lacked judicially cognizable property interest in police enforcement of restraining order against complainant’s husband who murdered their three children in violation of the restraining order); Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-86 , 102 S.Ct. 69 , 70 L.Ed.2d 65 (1981) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another); Fuller, 829 S.W.2d at 201 (standing “consists of some interest peculiar to the perso | 3 | 3 |
Leeke v. Timmermangreen2 sentences2010See Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 754, 768 , 125 S.Ct. 2796 , 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (2005) (private citizen complainant lacked judicially cognizable property interest in police enforcement of restraining order against complainant’s husband who murdered their three children in violation of the restraining order); Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-86 , 102 S.Ct. 69 , 70 L.Ed.2d 65 (1981) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another); Fuller, 829 S.W.2d at 201 (standing “consists of some interest peculiar to the perso 2010See Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 754, 768 , 125 S.Ct. 2796 , 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (2005) (private citizen complainant lacked judicially cognizable property interest in police enforcement of restraining order against complainant’s husband who murdered their three children in violation of the restraining order); Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-86 , 102 S.Ct. 69 , 70 L.Ed.2d 65 (1981) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another); Fuller, 829 S.W.2d at 201 (standing “consists of some interest peculiar to the perso | 1 | 2 |
Martin Sulkow v. Crosstown Apparel Inc., Dana Linden & Michael Swartzgreen2 sentences1999In a criminal prosecution for violation of securities regulations, a party may be prosecuted in the absence of any writing if the offense involves misconduct in a transaction concerning a purely fictional "security." See Shappley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (criminal liability attached when, in telephone conversation, appellant offered to sell bonds); Sharp v. State, 392 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1965) (offer to sell nonexistent stock certificates); Sulkow v. Crosstown Apparel, Inc., 807 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1986) (noting that person who engages in fraud in connection 1999In a criminal prosecution for violation of securities regulations, a party may be prosecuted in the absence of any writing if the offense involves misconduct in a transaction concerning a purely fictional “security.” See Shappley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (criminal liability attached when, in telephone conversation, appellant offered to sell bonds); Sharp v. State, 392 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1965) (offer to sell nonexistent stock certificates); Sulkow v. Crosstown Apparel, Inc., 807 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1986) (noting that person who engages in fraud in connection | 1 | 1 |
Shappley v. Stategreen2 sentences1999In a criminal prosecution for violation of securities regulations, a party may be prosecuted in the absence of any writing if the offense involves misconduct in a transaction concerning a purely fictional "security." See Shappley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (criminal liability attached when, in telephone conversation, appellant offered to sell bonds); Sharp v. State, 392 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1965) (offer to sell nonexistent stock certificates); Sulkow v. Crosstown Apparel, Inc., 807 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1986) (noting that person who engages in fraud in connection 1999In a criminal prosecution for violation of securities regulations, a party may be prosecuted in the absence of any writing if the offense involves misconduct in a transaction concerning a purely fictional “security.” See Shappley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (criminal liability attached when, in telephone conversation, appellant offered to sell bonds); Sharp v. State, 392 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1965) (offer to sell nonexistent stock certificates); Sulkow v. Crosstown Apparel, Inc., 807 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1986) (noting that person who engages in fraud in connection | 1 | 1 |
Sharp v. Stategreen2 sentences1999In a criminal prosecution for violation of securities regulations, a party may be prosecuted in the absence of any writing if the offense involves misconduct in a transaction concerning a purely fictional "security." See Shappley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (criminal liability attached when, in telephone conversation, appellant offered to sell bonds); Sharp v. State, 392 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1965) (offer to sell nonexistent stock certificates); Sulkow v. Crosstown Apparel, Inc., 807 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1986) (noting that person who engages in fraud in connection 1999In a criminal prosecution for violation of securities regulations, a party may be prosecuted in the absence of any writing if the offense involves misconduct in a transaction concerning a purely fictional “security.” See Shappley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (criminal liability attached when, in telephone conversation, appellant offered to sell bonds); Sharp v. State, 392 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1965) (offer to sell nonexistent stock certificates); Sulkow v. Crosstown Apparel, Inc., 807 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1986) (noting that person who engages in fraud in connection | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Stategreen1 sentence1989Butler v. State, 769 S.W.2d 234, 239 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilkerson v. State
green
2 sentences2017App. 2005). “[O]nly when a CPS investigator (or other non-law enforcement state agent) is acting in tandem with police to investigate and gather evidence for a criminal prosecution are such warnings required.” Id. at 523 . 2017“Although state employment clearly makes a person an ‘agent of the State,’ that label does not, by itself, make the person an ‘agent of the State’ for the purpose of defining ‘custodial interrogation.’” Id. at 528 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Searsy v. Commercial Trading Corp.
green
2 sentences1999In this context, I do not agree that "evidence of indebtedness" refers only to written "contractual obligations to pay in the future for consideration presently received." See Thomas, 919 S.W.2d at 432 ; Searsy, 560 S.W.2d at 641 . 1999In this context, I do not agree that “evidence of indebtedness” refers only to written “contractual obligations to pay in the future for consideration presently received.” See Thomas, 919 S.W.2d at 432 ; Searsy, 560 S.W.2d at 641 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences1999In this context, I do not agree that "evidence of indebtedness" refers only to written "contractual obligations to pay in the future for consideration presently received." See Thomas, 919 S.W.2d at 432 ; Searsy, 560 S.W.2d at 641 . 1999In this context, I do not agree that “evidence of indebtedness” refers only to written “contractual obligations to pay in the future for consideration presently received.” See Thomas, 919 S.W.2d at 432 ; Searsy, 560 S.W.2d at 641 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Freedman v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1970The leading case in this area is Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L,Ed.2d 649 (1965), which involved a criminal prosecution for violation of a state statute which made it unlawful to exhibit a motion picture without first obtaining a license. 1970The leading case in this area is Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L,Ed.2d 649 (1965), which involved a criminal prosecution for violation of a state statute which made it unlawful to exhibit a motion picture without first obtaining a license. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.