Skip to main content

Bynum v. State

Citations

  • 767 S.W.2d 769
  • 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33
  • 1989 WL 11469

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that when First Amendment rights are not implicated, a court must first consider whether the statute is impermissibly vague as applied to the challenging party’s specific conduct
  • explaining that when First Amendment rights are not implicated, a court must first consider whether the statute is impermissibly vague as applied to the challenging party’s specific conduct
  • explaining that when First Amendment rights are not implicated, a court must first consider whether the statute is impermissibly vague as applied to the challenging party’s specific conduct
  • explaining that when First Amendment rights are not implicated, a court must first consider whether the statute is impermissibly vague as applied to the challenging party's specific conduct
  • holding there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant misappropriated fiduciary property when he cashed checks given to him as contributions for the benefit of funding citizens' political-action committee
  • disagreeing with the appellant that a witness must testify that “we agreed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Duncan, Miller, Teague, Clinton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

317 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Bynum v. State

50 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.