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 1 courts 1991–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Muehler v. Menagreen2 sentences2014Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 , 1042– 43 (2013); see also Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98 , 125 S. Ct. 1465, 1470 (2005) (“Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search [a residence] and she was an 7 occupant of that address at the time of the search.”). 6 The Court also listed several factors to determine if the occupant is within the “immediate vicinity,” such as the lawful limits of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of the dwelling, and the ease of reentry from the occupant’s locatio 2014Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 , 1042– 43 (2013); see also Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98 , 125 S. Ct. 1465, 1470 (2005) (“Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search [a residence] and she was an 7 occupant of that address at the time of the search.”). 6 The Court also listed several factors to determine if the occupant is within the “immediate vicinity,” such as the lawful limits of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of the dwelling, and the ease of reentry from the occupant’s locatio | 1 | 1 |
Horton v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Horton, 986 S.W.2d at 304 . 2002See Horton, 986 S.W.2d at 304 . | 1 | 1 |
Union Planters National Leasing, Inc. v. Roderick D. Woodsgreen1 sentence1994Relying on Union Planters National Leasing, Inc. v. Woods, 687 F.2d 117, 121 (5th Cir.1982), the court listed several factors to consider in exercising its discretion: “prejudice to the opposing party, undue delay, repeated failure to cure deficiencies with prior amendment, bad faith, dilatory motive and futility of amendment.” The federal court specifically found that RISD would have been prejudiced by these “new” causes of action based on “significant delay” and, alternatively, noted the “futility” of the claims due to the Turners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bailey v. United States
green
2 sentences2014Bailey, 133 S. Ct. at 1042 . 2014Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 , 1042– 43 (2013); see also Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98 , 125 S. Ct. 1465, 1470 (2005) (“Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search [a residence] and she was an 7 occupant of that address at the time of the search.”). 6 The Court also listed several factors to determine if the occupant is within the “immediate vicinity,” such as the lawful limits of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of the dwelling, and the ease of reentry from the occupant’s locatio | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hudson v. United States
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 99-100 , 118 S.Ct. 488 . 2001Id. at 99-100 , 118 S.Ct. 488 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Amco Insurance v. Norton
green
2 sentences1996Id. 500 N.W.2d at 547 . 1996Id. 500 N.W.2d at 547 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Arnold v. State
green
2 sentences1991The factors included: (1) whether parole was mentioned during voir dire, 786 S.W.2d at 301 ; (2) whether the instruction was submitted over the objection of appellant’s trial counsel, Id. at 301-302 ; (3) whether the prosecutor, during argument, urged the jury to consider the law of parole and good conduct time, Id. at 302-304 ; (4) whether the jury, during deliberation, sent any notes to the trial court inquiring about parole or good conduct time, Id. at 304-305 ; (5) the punishment assessed, Id. at 305 ; (6) whether the jury rejected an application for probation, Id.; (7) whether a “curative 1991The factors included: (1) whether parole was mentioned during voir dire, 786 S.W.2d at 301 ; (2) whether the instruction was submitted over the objection of appellant’s trial counsel, Id. at 301-302 ; (3) whether the prosecutor, during argument, urged the jury to consider the law of parole and good conduct time, Id. at 302-304 ; (4) whether the jury, during deliberation, sent any notes to the trial court inquiring about parole or good conduct time, Id. at 304-305 ; (5) the punishment assessed, Id. at 305 ; (6) whether the jury rejected an application for probation, Id.; (7) whether a “curative | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.