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 1912–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cosio v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Id. at 777, n.75 . | 1 | 1 |
Dickerson v. McConnon & Co.green1 sentence1943See authorities above cited, and Dickerson v. McConnon & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W. 1084 ; W. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Lara
green
2 sentences2003Lara, 52 S.W.3d at 184 . 2003Lara , 52 S.W.3d at 184 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Hastings v. State
neutral
1 sentence1957Rep. 507 , 43 S.W. 2d 113 , we find the following statement which appears *207 to be a repetition of the rule expressed in the early Smith case as follows: “It is the general rule that it is not permissible in rape cases to prove the accused is a married man and that he has children unless such testimony tends to solve some issue in the case.” In the case of Weaver v. State (1935), 129 Texas Cr. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Weaver v. State
green
2 sentences1957Rep. 317 , 86 S.W. 2d 758 , the appellant plead alibi and called his mother to support his testimony. 1957Rep. 507 , 43 S.W. 2d 113 , we find the following statement which appears *207 to be a repetition of the rule expressed in the early Smith case as follows: “It is the general rule that it is not permissible in rape cases to prove the accused is a married man and that he has children unless such testimony tends to solve some issue in the case.” In the case of Weaver v. State (1935), 129 Texas Cr. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Smith v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1912The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, ‘anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding.’ This great principle is that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the Constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.” Continuing, the court says: “And particularly apposite is the repetition of that principle in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 -473 [8 Sup. 1912The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, ‘anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding.’ This great principle is that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the Constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.” Continuing, the court says: “And particularly apposite is the repetition of that principle in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 -473 [8 Sup. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.