Skip to main content

Woods v. State

Citations

  • 108 S.W.3d 314
  • 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 113
  • 2003 WL 21398613

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that \the extra-notice recitations in the notice of appeal [under former rule 25.2(b)(3)] must be true and supported by the record\
  • holding that the former Rule 25.2(b)(3) extra-notice recitations in a notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record
  • holding that \the extra-notice recitations in the notice of appeal [under former rule 25.2(b)(3)] must be true and supported by the record\
  • holding that the former Rule 25.2(b)(3) extra-notice recitations in a notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record
  • holding that “the extra-notice recitations in the notice of appeal [under former rule 25.2(b)(3) ] must be true and supported by the record”
  • holding that appeals court had no jurisdiction over matters raised in appellant’s brief that were outside the scope of appeal set forth by Rule 25.2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keller, Meyers, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Cochran, Price, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

186 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.