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 1979–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paez v. Stategreen2 sentences2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C 2007Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Smithgreen1 sentence2007LEXIS 8284, *5-8 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 1992); United States v. Smith, 7 F.3d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir.1993). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edward Larry Turnergreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George Andrew Scalfgreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
Roger George Flittie v. Herman Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary and Mark v. Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of South Dakotagreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
Michael Ricardo Leviston v. Charles Black, Warden, Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complexgreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mundell Cooper, United States of America v. Lawrence Williamsgreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Willoughby, Quintin Prioleau, Arthur Prioleau, and Carleton Montgomerygreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dowthitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2007But see Dowthitt , 931 S.W.2d at 254 n.4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). 28. 2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody” will be examined “from a federal constitutional perspective” and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). . | 2 | 2 |
Wilkerson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C 2007Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). . | 1 | 2 |
Paez v. Stategreen2 sentences2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C 2007Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). . | 1 | 2 |
Thompson v. Keohanegreen2 sentences2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C 2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
Mathis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C 2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
Ripkowski v. Stategreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
Guzman v. Stategreen2 sentences2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C 2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
Enrique Ortiz Cervantes v. Bill Walker, Superintendent, Banning Road Campgreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rossgreen1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cantu v. State
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 733 . 2004Id. at 733 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Kennedy v. Andover Place Apartments
green
1 sentence2023In other words, the HUD notice period may run concurrently with the first state notice period, but section 24.005 still requires a second notice.” Id. 2 As noted above, the trial court signed findings and fact and conclusions of law. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Marco Garcia v. Harry K. Singletary Robert Butterworth
green
1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Michael S. Menzer
green
1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. James L. Conley
green
1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Keenan Kester Cofield
green
1 sentence2007But see Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 254 n. 4 (stating that the issue of "custody" will be examined "from a federal constitutional perspective" and that the Court will presume that the state statutory standard is the same because the appellant failed to argue that the state and federal concepts of custody differ). [28] Wilkerson, 173 S.W.3d at 532 (quoting Paez, 681 S.W.2d at 36 [original emphasis]). [29] Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). [30] Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.C | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences1979In Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statutory privilege prohibiting disclosure of a juvenile’s probationary status must give way to a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. 1979In Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statutory privilege prohibiting disclosure of a juvenile’s probationary status must give way to a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. | 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.