Legal Opinion

In Re Commitment of Hill

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 2011No. 10-0280PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Per curiam

A party selecting jurors for trial must be given latitude to intelligently use its peremptory challenges to seat a jury that, to the greatest extent possible, is free from bias. Here, because the trial court refused to allow two permissible lines of questioning, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment upholding the trial court’s ruling and remand this case for a new trial.

This is an appeal from a civil commitment proceeding in which a jury found Seth Hill to be a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 841 (providing for the civil commitment of certain violent sexual…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Babcock v. Northwest Memorial HospitalTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Hyundai Motor Co. v. VasquezTexas Supreme Court · 2006

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. in Re Commitment of John James Smith Jr., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2014
  2. in Re Commitment of Lester Winkle, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2014
  3. In re Commitment of KalatiCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2012
  4. K.J. v. USA Water Polo, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2012
  5. in Re Commitment of Edward Russell Tesson, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2013

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API