Hyundai Electric v. United States

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 court determines that jury charge error exists, court then determines whether defendant was harmed by error
• explaining that we construe statutes according to their plain meaning unless such construction would lead to absurd results
• stating that “[t]he legislature intended for the State to prove facts constituting bigamy whenever . . . the State invokes [s]ection 22.011(f)”
• stating that “it was the State’s responsibility to prove that Arteaga was ‘prohibited from marrying the victim . . . under [s]ection 25.01’”
• characterizing reversal and remand for a new trial as the “normative remedy” where harmful jury charge error has been found
• stating “[t]he legislature intended for the State to prove facts constituting bigamy whenever . . . the State invokes [s]ection 22.011(f)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).