Skip to main content
· 12/16/1887

Higgenbotham v. State

Citations

  • 24 Tex. Ct. App. 505
  • 6 S.W. 201
  • 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 231

Syllabus

<p>Perjury—Evidence—Charge oe the Court.—It was not error to permit the State in a trial for perjury, to read in evidence the complaint filed in the cause upon the trial of which the perjury was alleged to have been committed, inasmuch as such evidence was competent to prove that the alleged false statements were made in the judicial proceeding and before the court alleged in the indictment, but, having admitted such evidence, the trial court, in its charge, should have limited its effect to such purpose only.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that proof of increased costs must be shown by each city or county affected by an unfunded statutory mandate to file solid waste management plans with the Department of Natural Resources
  • holding that proof of increased costs must be shown by each city or county affected by an unfunded statutory mandate to file solid waste management plans with the Department of Natural Resources
  • applying this rule to find the remedy for a Hancock violation was noncompliance with the mandate until the state actually reimbursed the city for its increased costs
  • applying this rule to find the remedy for a Hancock violation was noncompliance with the mandate until the state actually reimbursed the city for its increased costs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Willsox

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.