Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 SW3D 508 - Ex Parte Rich

Ex Parte Rich’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

30 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 211th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Ex Parte Elizondo · Robinson v. State · Heath v. State · Bullard v. State · Mizell 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “our holdings in Ex parte Nelson , 137 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), and Ex parte Townsend , 137 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), limit the ability of inmates to bring claims on habeas corpus that they could have raised on direct appeal,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he fact that the record on direct appeal would not have revealed that there was a problem with Applicant's sentence makes habeas corpus the appropriate avenue for affording him relief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he applicant has several prior felony convictions that could have been substituted in the improper enhancement's place. Specifically, the applicant has been previously convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery out of the 178th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 344734 on November 12, 1982.... The applicant has also been previously convicted of the felony offense of theft by receiving out of the 178th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 417926 on June 14, 1985.... Furthermore, the applicant was convicted of the felony offense of arson out of the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, in cause number 95-05-00693-CR_Any of the three aforementioned convictions could have been substituted for the improper enhancement and the applicant’s sentence of fifteen years would not be illegal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.