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 3 cases, quoted by 16 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 Vasquez v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vasquez v. State Anchor | green | “we have interpreted articles 36.14 and 36.15 as dealing with those two distinct situations: an objection to the charge and a requested special instruction, respectively.” | 7 |
| 2 | Martinez v. State | green | “we see nothing that would lead us to any other conclusion but that the legislature intended for the deadly weapon provisions to apply in every felony case as the context of the law suggests.” | 5 |
| 3 | Crane v. State | green | “where it is shown by satisfactory proof to a peace officer, upon the representation of a credible person, that a felony has been committed, and that the offender is about to escape, so that there is no time to procure a warrant, such peace officer may, without warrant, pursue an…” | 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.