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 5 courts 1921–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Garlandgreen2 sentences2008Historical Background The concept of "corruption of blood" and "forfeiture of estate" emanate from the English common-law doctrine of "attainder." As the United States Supreme Court has observed, attainder is "'the stain or corruption of the blood of a criminally capitally condemned; the immediate inseparable consequence of the common law on the pronouncing the sentence of death.' The effect of this corruption of the blood was that the party attainted lost all inheritable quality, and could neither receive nor transmit any property or other rights by inheritance." Exparte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 2008Historical Background The concept of "corruption of blood" and "forfeiture of estate" emanate from the English common-law doctrine of "attainder." As the United States Supreme Court has observed, attainder is "`the stain or corruption of the blood of a criminally capitally condemned; the immediate inseparable consequence of the common law on the pronouncing the sentence of death.' The effect of this corruption of the blood was that the party attainted lost all inheritable quality, and could neither receive nor transmit any property or other rights by inheritance." Exparte Garland , 71 U.S. 333 | 1 | 2 |
Manry v. Robisongreen2 sentences2020Instead, we concluded “that the other clear rule of the common law, that abandoned river beds are the property of the riparian owners, regardless of navigability, should be applied to all our streams above tidewater, navigable in fact or in law; a rule in entire harmony with the Mexican civil law.” Id. 2020We concluded that the English common law rule that “abandoned beds of tidal rivers become the property of the sovereign[] was not adopted in this state as to our streams above the ebb and flow of the tide.” Id. at 449 (emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Deck v. Missourigreen2 sentences2013Bishop, N EW C RIMINAL P ROCEDURE § 955 (3rd ed)). 9 Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 628 (2005) (citing federal and state cases and legal commentators). 10 Id. at 628-29 . 2013Bishop, N EW C RIMINAL P ROCEDURE § 955 (3rd ed)). 9 Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 628 (2005) (citing federal and state cases and legal commentators). 10 Id. at 628-29 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015As discussed above, in 1840 the American courts recognized a The American courts never made the inquiry whether this common-law action for wrongful death. particular English rule, bitterly criticized in England, "was applicable to their situation," and it is difficult to imagine Building on virtually universal commentary critical of on what basis they might have concluded that it was. the English common-law rule barring actions for wrongful death [16] and the questionable historical basis for the rule's Id. at 386, 90 S.Ct. at 1780 . [17] adoption, the United States Supreme Court in the landma | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Clarendon Land Investment Agency Co. v. McClelland Bros.
green
2 sentences1999In Clarendon Land, Inv. & Agency Co. v. McClelland, 86 Tex. 179 , 23 S.W. 576 (1893), this Court described the resulting rule: Neither the courts nor the legislature of this state have ever recognized the rule of the common law of England which requires every man to restrain his cattle either by tethering or by inclosure.... 1999In Clarendon Land, Inv. & Agency Co. v. McClelland, 86 Tex. 179 , 23 S.W. 576 (1893), this Court described the resulting rule: Neither the courts nor the legislature of this state have ever recognized the rule of the common law of England which requires every man to restrain his cattle either by tethering or by inclosure.... | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Perry v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1921The Court of' Civil Appeals affirmed this judgment, upon the holding that the right of re-entry after condition subsequent broken is not assignable, and therefore no title passed by the conveyance from Keith and wife to Perry. 198 S. W. 1013 . . _ The case presents two questions for determination: First, whether the trial court’s holding that the condition in • the deed was waived is supported by the evidence; and, second, whether the English common-law doctrine that the right of re-entry after condition subsequent broken is not assignable is in force in this state. [1] The only testimony tend | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.