City of Fort Worth v. Harty
Court of Appeals of Texas
1ConcurrenceFarrar, Justice
I agree with the majority opinion, and write this concurring opinion in support of the holding of the majority.
We, as an appellate court, have the authority to examine legislative history of a relevant code provision even if it has not been presented to the trial court. See Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Dillehey v. State, 815 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Crim. App.1991); Harris County Dist. Attorney’s Office v. J.T.S., 807 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.1991); Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). In Dillehey, Justice Miller attached an appendix to his majority opinion and explained…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Boykin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Studer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
- Harris County District Attorney's Office v. J.T.S.Texas Supreme Court · 1991
- Dillehey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Lee v. City of HoustonTexas Supreme Court · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.