Ex Parte Tamez

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that accused was not entitled to pretrial habeas corpus relief because pleading did not show on its face that charged offense was barred by limitations
• “[T]he court of appeals was correct in determining it had jurisdiction to review the indictment” that appellant complained was barred by limitations.
• “[I]f the pleading, on its face, shows that the offense charged is barred by limitations, then it is appropriate that habeas corpus relief be granted.”
• “[I]f the pleading, on its face, shows that the offense charged is barred by limitations, then it is appropriate that habeas corpus relief be granted.”
• application for writ of habeas corpus is proper vehicle to invoke statute of limitations “if the pleading, on its face, shows that the offense charged is barred by limitations”
• “We have long held that when there is a valid statute or ordinance under which a prosecution may be brought, habeas corpus is generally not available prior to trial to test the sufficiency of the complaint, information, or indictment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).