Billingslea v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that variance between affiant’s signature and name of affiant recited in jurat is defect of form that can be corrected

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Peterson v. State
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1987-04-15· cited 6×
• Cadenhead v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1963-06-26· cited 3×
• Crawford v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1960-11-23· cited 3×
• Womack v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1956-01-25· cited 2×
• Thomas v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1962-10-31· cited 1×
• Bryan D. Malatesta, Willie Voncille Malatesta v. Dove Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
  Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 2009-12-22
• Cano v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1962-03-07
• Chapman v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1965-06-23

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hampton v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1952-03-26· cited 18×
• Baker v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1954-03-10· cited 8×
• Howard v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1952-03-19· cited 7×