Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 S.W.3d 170 - Ex Parte Smith

Ex Parte Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 2008
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 282nd Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Ex Parte Peterson · Ex Parte Weise · Menefee v. State · Ex Parte Martin · Burke v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In this case, there is a valid statute under which the aggravated assault prosecution is being brought. Appellant does not raise a challenge that would render his prosecution void. He does not assert the aggravated assault statute is unconstitutional on its face or that the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. Nor does appellant contend there was any irregularity that would render the indictment void. Rather, appellant is challenging the State’s decision as to which statute it will use to prosecute appellant. Appellant’s in pari materia claim, if successful, will not result in his immediate release. If convicted of aggravated assault, appellant has an adequate remedy on appeal to challenge the denial of his in pari mate-ria claim. (Citations omitted). We hold that appellant’s in pari materia claim is not cognizable by pretrial writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.