Skip to main content
Fifth Circuit· 12/30/1994

Davis v. Ector County, Tex.

Citations

  • 40 F.3d 777
  • 1994 WL 695512

How courts have described this case

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

  • “The function of the reviewing court with respect to instructions is to satisfy itself that the instructions show no tendency to confuse or mislead the jury with respect to the applicable principles of law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
  • “The function of the reviewing court with respect to instructions is to satisfy itself that the instructions show no tendency to confuse or mislead the jury with respect to the applicable principles of law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
  • Ector County District Attorney was a “county official”
  • articulating purpose of similar Texas whistleblower law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wisdom, Jones, Fitzwater

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

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.