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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Medina v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Medina v. State Anchor | green | “cannot decide an issue based on assertions in the briefs alone; rather, issues must be proven by the record.” | 8 |
| 2 | Medina v. State | green | “this court will not consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what actually does appear in the record.” | 8 |
| 3 | Nicholson on Behalf of Gollott v. State | green | “statutes under constitutional attack have a presumption of validity attached to them, overcome only with a showing of unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.