Skip to main content
· 4/15/1867

Brooks v. Howard

Citations

  • 30 Tex. 278

Syllabus

<p>A third application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1509, Note 595.)</p> <p>But, even in a third application for a continuance, there may be circumstances when to overrule the motion is error. (See the opinion for such a case.)</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • deciding in a review for plain error that the filing of more serious charge after a mistrial did not raise a recognizable presumption of vindictiveness
  • deciding in a review for plain error that the filing of more serious charge after a mistrial did not raise a recognizable presumption of vindictiveness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Willie

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.