Pena v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 state decisions

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality... unless such adjudication is unavoidable.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re CMD · In Re Er

2. “Although Rule 38.1(e) explains that “the statement of an issue or point [presented for review] will be treated as covering every subsidiary question that is fairly included,” the issue of who should make the determination of whether CDs qualify as securities under the Texas Securities Act is clearly separate from whether the trial judge in this case, in response to the agreement of the parties, erred in deciding that the CDs in question were securities as a matter of law. Rule 38.9 instructs that the briefing rules are to be construed liberally, allowing the appellate court to “require additional briefing, and make any other order necessary for a satisfactory submission of the case” if it “determines ... that the case has not been properly presented in the briefs, or that the law and authorities have not been properly cited in the briefs.” Tex.R.App. PROC. 38.9(b). ■While this provision gives the appellate courts some discretion in remedying “substantive defects” in parties’ briefs, it does not allow the court of appeals to reach out and reverse the trial court on an issue that was not raised.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hammock v. State

3. “We do not suggest that an appellate court must order briefing every time it decides to raise on its own a point of error not briefed by the parties. As we indicated earlier, some rules-eonstitu-tional or otherwise-are already firmly established through prior litigation, having already passed through the fires of adversarial testing. And rules that do not expand the reach of the federal or state constitutions can be overturned by the Legislature; although the cost of mistakes regarding those types of rules is high, a remedy exists. But a novel rule that expands the reach of a constitutional provision can hamstring the Legislature as well as frustrate trial courts and prosecutors who relied upon the rule that was previously in effect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pena v. State