Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 11/29/2000

State v. Ross

Citations

32 S.W.3d 853
2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 101
2000 WL 1749834

How courts have described this case

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

holding that if the trial court‘s decision is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, its decision will be sustained
holding that trial court is exclusive fact-finder at suppression hearing and decides weight to be placed on testimony
holding that if trial court does not make findings of fact, appellate court must assume that trial court made implicit findings that support its ruling
holding that if trial court does not make findings of fact, appellate court must assume that trial court made implicit findings that support its ruling
holding that if the trial court’s decision is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, its decision will be sustained
stating that the finder of fact “may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony, even if that testimony is not controverted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Price, Meyers, Mansfield, Holland, Johnson, Womack, Keller, Keasler, McCormick

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,769 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named State v. Ross

543 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.