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.
6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramirez v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Id. (stolen property recovered by police after arrested juvenile escorted them to the site was inadmissible because police violated Texas Family Code by not transporting arrested juvenile to juvenile processing center "without first being taken to any other place"); Ramirez v. State , 105 S.W.3d 730, 745 (Tex. App.--Austin 2003, no pet.) (warrantless search of cooler containing marihuana based solely on defendant's statements was suppressed because State "failed to establish that a reasonable officer would have felt it necessary to search the cooler or the garage premises without a warrant"). 2004Id. (stolen property recovered by police after arrested juvenile escorted them to the site was inadmissible because police violated Texas Family Code by not transporting arrested juvenile to juvenile processing center “without first being taken to any other place”); Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 730, 745 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.) (warrantless search of cooler containing marihuana based solely on defendant’s statements was suppressed because State “failed to establish that a reasonable officer would have felt it necessary to search the cooler or the garage premises without a warrant”). 2 | 2 | 2 |
In Re Bh and Ehgreen1 sentence2008See Crow, 176 S.W.3d at 927 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roquemore v. State
green
2 sentences2004Id. (stolen property recovered by police after arrested juvenile escorted them to the site was inadmissible because police violated Texas Family Code by not transporting arrested juvenile to juvenile processing center "without first being taken to any other place"); Ramirez v. State , 105 S.W.3d 730, 745 (Tex. App.--Austin 2003, no pet.) (warrantless search of cooler containing marihuana based solely on defendant's statements was suppressed because State "failed to establish that a reasonable officer would have felt it necessary to search the cooler or the garage premises without a warrant"). 2004Id. (stolen property recovered by police after arrested juvenile escorted them to the site was inadmissible because police violated Texas Family Code by not transporting arrested juvenile to juvenile processing center “without first being taken to any other place”); Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 730, 745 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.) (warrantless search of cooler containing marihuana based solely on defendant’s statements was suppressed because State “failed to establish that a reasonable officer would have felt it necessary to search the cooler or the garage premises without a warrant”). 2 | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State of Texas v. Mazuca, Alvaro
green
1 sentence2015Id., at 301-307 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2008In Williams v. State,4 this Court held that Williams’ plea of guilty to a capital murder charge in front of the jury was not an illegal waiver of a jury trial but rather a trial by jury that essentially became a trial on punishment only.5 This Court also took note of Williams’ contention that Article 37.071 applies only to bifurcated trials and that a guilty plea in front 4 674 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. Crim. 2008App. 1984). 5 Id. at 318-19 FULLER – 6 of the jury is not a bifurcated trial.6 Williams argued that a defendant could not plead guilty in front of the jury in a capital case.7 In a footnote, this Court responded that [t]he plea must be to a jury so as to comply with the limitations of Art[icle] 1.14. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Veal v. Thomason
green
2 sentences1957As stated in Veal v. Thomason, 138 Tex. 341 , 159 S.W.2d 472 , all persons who have or claim a direct interest in the object and subject matter of the suit and whose interests will necessarily be affected by any judgment that may be rendered therein, are not only proper parties, but are necessary and indispensable parties.” In holding that the County was a necessary and indispensable party to the suit tc enjoin the County Treasurer, County Judge and Commissioners Court from paying an alleged illegal claim for services as an assistant district attorney the Court in Scott v. Graham said: “It is 1957As stated in Veal v. Thomason, 138 Tex. 341 , 159 S.W.2d 472 , all persons who have or claim a direct interest in the object and subject matter of the suit and whose interests will necessarily be affected by any judgment that may be rendered therein, are not only proper parties, but are necessary and indispensable parties.” In holding that the County was a necessary and indispensable party to the suit tc enjoin the County Treasurer, County Judge and Commissioners Court from paying an alleged illegal claim for services as an assistant district attorney the Court in Scott v. Graham said: “It is | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.