Salazar v. State

Decided October 25, 1972

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1972-10-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In the cases provided for in the two preceding Articles, the proceeding shall be regulated by the same rules that govern civil actions where an appeal is taken or a writ of error sued out.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Surety Insurance Company of California v. State

Relies on Reeves v. State · Butler v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-10-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 2001

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

¶2 These are appeals from judgments forfeiting bail bonds.

¶3 The parties to these causes through a joint motion, pray that they be reversed and remanded for the purpose of entering a compromise settlement.

¶4 Bond forfeiture appeals are governed by “the same rules that govern civil actions where an appeal is taken or a writ of error sued out”. Article 44.44, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Reeves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 465 S.W.2d 757.

¶5 *324 A judgment of reversal will be entered when parties to a civil cause on appeal, through a joint motion, request that the cause be reversed for the purpose of entering an agreed judgment. Butler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 907, and the cases cited therein.

¶6 The judgments are reversed and the causes remanded to the 167th District Court of Travis County, and the clerk is directed to issue mandates immediately upon the announcement of this decision.