6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gilder v. Menogreen2 sentences2006“By conducting a second evidentiary hearing, the court severely undermines the authority and usefulness of the evidentiary hearing conducted by the [administrative body].” Gilder v. Meno, 926 S.W.2d 357, 361 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, writ denied). 1998In essence, the administrative function is transferred to the trial court, and the administrative body is denied use of the expertise granted to it by the legislature. *767 As the Austin Court of Appeals wrote in Gilder , “[b]y conducting a second evidentiary hearing, the court severely undermines the authority and usefulness of the evidentiary hearing conducted by the agency.” Gilder, 926 S.W.2d at 361 . | 1 | 2 |
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Maygreen1 sentence1988By way of Bradley’s testimony and the water department’s records of repair, appellee was able to establish that on May 31, 1985 , fifteen water main breaks occurred in the City of Fort Worth, and eight of that fifteen, including the one in question, occurred in the appel-lee’s neighborhood. | 1 | 1 |
Becerra v. Garibaldogreen1 sentence1979See Becerra v. Garibaldo, 526 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
William Foxworth v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1979An actual and significant conflict of interest exists when “one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of a codefendant whom counsel is also representing.” Foxworth v. Wainwright, 516 F.2d 1072 at 1076 (5th Cir. 1975); U. S. v. Huntley, 535 F.2d 1400 (5th Cir. 1976). 1979NOTES [1] The district judge conducting the original evidentiary hearing on this application was the same judge who presided at petitioner's original trial. [2] The district judge presiding at the second evidentiary hearing was administratively assigned to preside since the original prosecuting attorney was now the district judge. [3] An actual and significant conflict of interest exists when "one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of a codefendant whom counsel is also representing." Foxw | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Suzanne Wolfe
green
1 sentence2016On appeal, the State argued “the trial .court erred in reconsidering and granting Wolfe’s motion to suppress without providing the State with prior notice that the motion would be reconsidered on that particular date and without holding a second evidentiary hearing.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Robert Everett Huntley and Gipson F. Hemphill
green
2 sentences1979An actual and significant conflict of interest exists when “one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of a codefendant whom counsel is also representing.” Foxworth v. Wainwright, 516 F.2d 1072 at 1076 (5th Cir. 1975); U. S. v. Huntley, 535 F.2d 1400 (5th Cir. 1976). 1979NOTES [1] The district judge conducting the original evidentiary hearing on this application was the same judge who presided at petitioner's original trial. [2] The district judge presiding at the second evidentiary hearing was administratively assigned to preside since the original prosecuting attorney was now the district judge. [3] An actual and significant conflict of interest exists when "one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of a codefendant whom counsel is also representing." Foxw | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.