Ex Parte Hovermale
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
1DissentCadena, Chief Justice
The holding in Ex parte Buckhanan, 626 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1981, no writ), should be followed.
The position taken by the majority in this case rests entirely on the theory that the decision of the Supreme Court of Texas in Ex parte Johnson, 591 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.1979), is not applicable to the facts of this case and of Buckhanan.
The attempted distinction between Johnson, on the one hand, and this case and Buckhanan, on the other, is based on what the majority opinion asserts is a distinction between the holdings in Hisquierdo v. His-quierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- McCarty v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.