Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In one of the odd provisions of the Texas Government Code, there is no requirement that a municipal judge be an attorney if the municipal court is not a court of record (Chapter 29, Section 29.004), but the municipal judge must be a licensed attorney with at least two years experience in practicing Texas law if the municipal court is a court of ...
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some ...
The oldest federal civil building in Texas, the 1861 Customs and Courthouse in Galveston, once housed the Southern District of Texas. Federal Courthouse in Galveston that housed the court & its predecessor, from 1891–1917 [2] Since its foundation, the Southern District of Texas has been served by forty-one District Judges and six Clerks of Court.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, sided with banking and business groups including the American Bankers Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce in finding the new rules ...
The Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil matters (including juvenile delinquency cases, which are categorized as civil under the Texas Family Code) in the U.S. state of Texas. A different court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is the court of last resort in criminal matters.
Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006) – States may limit the evidence of innocence a defendant may present at his sentencing hearing to evidence already presented at his trial. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) – Imposing the death penalty when mitigating and aggravating factors are in equipoise is constitutional. Kansas v.
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay ...
The Court explained that the defendant's burden was merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, never the burden of persuasion. [5] The burden of proof, therefore, never actually shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant but remained with the plaintiff. [ 6 ]