McDonald v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “In accordance with the third criteria enunciated in Burger . . . , the [Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code] limits the scope of warrantless inspections to the performance of any duty imposed by the code. The duties of the code are detecting code violations; violations are statutorily defined.“

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cauthern v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 2004-02-19· cited 266×
• Santikos v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1992-06-03· cited 252×
• Commonwealth v. Tremblay
  Massachusetts Appeals Court· 2000-01-13· cited 6×
• Alcaraz, Jose Luis v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2004-01-20
• Opinion No.
  Texas Attorney General Reports· 1999-03-11
• Opinion No.
  Texas Attorney General Reports· 2002-06-10
• Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
  Texas Attorney General Reports· 2002-07-02
• Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
  Texas Attorney General Reports· 1999-07-02

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• New York v. Burger
  Supreme Court· 1987-06-19· cited 1,072×
• Crosby v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1987-11-12· cited 46×
• Clark v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1969-07-09· cited 19×
• City of Corsicana v. Herod
  Tex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 1989-02-16· cited 12×
• McDonald v. State
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1988-02-25· cited 1×