In Re: R. Stephen Polley v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that section 844(h)(1), with “simple, clear terms[,] ... does not limit itself to the prosecution of arson cases”
• holding that the defendant was restricted on cross- examination of the prosecution’s witness, who had been recalled for a second time, to the scope of the government’s questioning on the second direct examination
• holding that “when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, no need exists for the court to examine the legislative history, and the court must give effect to the plain meaning of the statute”
• suggesting that where plain language does not definitively settle an issue, a court may seek guidance in the overall statutory scheme and the legislative histoi’y
• concluding a petitioner’s claim he could not relocate within a country “was contradicted by his testimony that his son and his parents have remained unharmed in the region of [the country] where [the petitioner] allegedly was threatened”
• “[a]long with looking at the language of the statute section in question, part of a court’s analysis includes examining the language and design of the statute as a whole”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).