Skip to main content

Michael Fred Wehrenberg v. State

Citations

  • 385 S.W.3d 715
  • 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9291
  • 2012 WL 5439031

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that independent source doctrine is inconsistent with Texas’s exclusionary rule and thus inapplicable in this State
  • holding that independent source doctrine is inconsistent with Texas’s exclusionary rule and thus inapplicable in this State
  • holding that independent source doctrine is inconsistent with Texas's exclusionary rule and thus inapplicable in this State
  • noting that “several federal courts . . . do not draw a relevant distinction” between those doctrines, and describing inevitable discovery as an “extrapolation” from independent source
  • noting that \several federal courts . . . do not draw a relevant distinction\ between those doctrines, and describing inevitable discovery as an \extrapolation\ from independent source
  • “The trial court did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, although Wehrenberg requested such findings and conclusions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gardner, Walker, Meier

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Michael Fred Wehrenberg v. State

8 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.