Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 SW3D 153 - Getts v. State

Getts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

22 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler))

Relationships

Relies on Lamie v. United States Trustee · Boykin v. State · Kutzner v. State · Brown v. State · Rawlings 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the conviction was a final conviction [[Image here]] (2) the offense for which the person is being tried was committed more than 10 years after the latest of: (A) the date on which the judgment was entered for the previous conviction; (B) the date on which the person was discharged from any period of community supervision on which the person was placed for the previous conviction; (C) the date on which the person successfully completed any period of parole on which the person was released after serving a portion of the term to which the person was sentenced for the previous conviction; or (D) the date on which the person completed serving any sentence for which the person was confined or imprisoned for the previous conviction; and (3)the person has not been convicted of an offense ... related to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated within 10 years of the latest date under Subdivision (2).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Where the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Legislature must be understood to mean what it has expressed, and it is not for the courts to add or subtract from such a statute.”); see also Seals v. State, 187 S.W.3d 417, 420 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (stating that Boykin”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In adhering to this rule, we show our respect for the legislature and recognize that if it enacted into law something different from what it intended, it would amend the statute to conform to its intent.”
    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.