Skip to main content

York v. State

Citations

  • 373 S.W.3d 32
  • 55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1013
  • 2012 WL 2476800
  • 2012 Tex. LEXIS 555

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that a stay that renders an action void, even temporarily, isn’t a typical “stay of proceedings pending appeal”
  • holding that there is no doubt “that the bankruptcy court can retroactively grant relief from the stay,” but rejecting the argument that “by authorizing the bankruptcy court to annul the stay, Congress broadened all courts’ jurisdiction to violate it”
  • concluding extrinsic evidence may be used to collaterally attack a judgment when statute terminating court’s jurisdiction is firmly established policy of state
  • concluding extrinsic evidence may be used to collaterally attack a judgment when statute terminating court’s jurisdiction is firmly established policy of state
  • concluding extrinsic evidence may be used to collaterally attack a judgment when statute terminating court’s jurisdiction is firmly established policy of state
  • concluding extrinsic evidence may be used to collaterally attack a judgment when statute terminating court’s jurisdiction is firmly established policy of state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hecht

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

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.