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.
8 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 127 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 Harrell v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Harrell v. State Anchor | green | “the constitution does not require pre-withdrawal notice or a comprehensive civil garnishment proceeding.” | 46 |
| 2 | Harrell v. State | green | “to compare the amounts assessed by the trial court in the underlying criminal proceedings to the amounts withdrawn and alert the court of any alleged errors.” | 20 |
| 3 | Weir v. State | green | “a defendant convicted of a felony offense in a district court shall pay a 5 security fee as a cost of court.” | 15 |
| 4 | Weir v. State | green | “has been made to suffer under excessive and unusual fines.” | 15 |
| 5 | Weir v. State | green | “intended by the legislature as a nonpunitive 'recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case.” | 15 |
| 6 | Justin Tirrell Williams v. State | green | “a non-punitive recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case.” | 10 |
| 7 | Johnson v. TENTH JUD. DIST. CT OF APPEALS | green | “to avoid confusion with an underlying court order or judgment ordering the payment of a sum falling within at least one of the six priority categories listed in the statute. see johnson v. tenth judicial district court of appeals at waco , 280 s.w.3d 866, 869 (tex.crim.app. 2008…” | 3 |
| 8 | Johnson v. TENTH JUD. DIST. CT OF APPEALS | green | “to avoid confusion with the underlying court order or judgment ordering the payment of a sum falling within at least one of the six priority categories listed in the statute. see johnson v. tenth judicial district court of appeals at waco , 280 s.w.3d 866, 869 (tex.crim.app. 200…” | 3 |
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.