Robinson, William Matthew v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the SORP is non-penal because the disability it imposes is not meant to punish, but to accomplish the legitimate governmental purpose of “protecting the public from sex offenses that could be perpetrated by adult and youthful sex offenders”
• finding that the SORP is non-penal because the disability it imposes is not meant to punish, but to accomplish the legitimate governmental purpose of “protecting the public from sex offenses that could be perpetrated by adult and youthful sex' offenders”
• finding the SORP not void for vagueness where wording of article 62.04(a) was “sufficiently explicit” to inform defendant of prohibited conduct
• finding no protected liberty or property interest violated by the SORP where appellant failed to allege State action disseminating false information that damaged his reputation in community or education or employment opportunities
• finding the Texas SORP does not violate appellant = s right to travel
• the Texas SORP creates no collateral consequences and so does not violate proportionality doctrine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ex Parte Robinson
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2003-10-01· cited 33×
• John Does 1-7 v. Greg Abbott
  Fifth Circuit· 2019-12-16· cited 25×
• Barker v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2011-02-15· cited 18×
• Steven McCraw v. C.I.
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 2017-08-03· cited 5×
• Ex parte Odom
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 2018-12-20· cited 4×
• Ex Parte Joselito Mercado
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2003-04-03
• Herron, Larry Leonard v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2004-05-27
• David Ray Barker v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2011-02-15
• John Theodore Davis v. State of Texas
  Tex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)· 2011-08-11
• Opinion No.
  Arkansas Attorney General Reports· 2003-01-10

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Paul v. Davis
  Supreme Court· 1976-05-19· cited 4,836×
• Connally v. General Construction Co.
  Supreme Court· 1926-01-04· cited 3,272×
• Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson
  Supreme Court· 1989-05-15· cited 2,461×
• Trop v. Dulles
  Supreme Court· 1958-03-31· cited 2,182×
• Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville
  Supreme Court· 1972-02-24· cited 1,862×
• Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha
  Supreme Court· 1983-06-23· cited 1,818×
• Smith v. Goguen
  Supreme Court· 1974-03-25· cited 1,514×
• Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-17· cited 341×
• Parent v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1981-09-23· cited 95×
• Buddy Cramer v. Samuel K. Skinner, as Secretary of Transportation, and Safe Airspace for Everyone, Intervening
  Fifth Circuit· 1991-05-09· cited 89×
• Sullivan v. University Interscholastic League
  Texas Supreme Court· 1981-04-22· cited 81×
• John Doe I, Jane Doe, and John Doe II v. Ronald O. Otte and Bruce M. Amended Botelho
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-08-08· cited 70×
• In re M.A.H.
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 2000-06-15· cited 53×
• Garay v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 1997-06-04· cited 32×
• State v. Gambling Device
  Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 1993-07-08· cited 12×
• Infante v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 2000-07-13· cited 11×
• Doe v. Lee
  D. Connecticut· 2001-03-31· cited 11×