Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 248 SW2D 241 - Prince v. Garrison

Prince v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
May 1998
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1998

10 state decisions

4019521960197019801990decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Pecos & North Texas Railway Co. v. Canyon Coal Co. · Williams v. Steele · Turnbow v. J. E. Bryant Co. · City of Big Spring v. Garlington · Jones v. Wynne

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

  1. ““Upon such hearing, in the event of an affirmative finding by the court, the officer who presides at such hearing shall report the same to the Department which shall have authority to suspend said license for a period not greater than one (1) year, provided, however, that in the event of such affirmative finding the licensee may appeal to the county court of the county wherein the hearing was held, said appeal to be tried de novo.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Although the statute in question is confusing and refers to courts and proceedings therein prior to a cancellation of appellant’s driver’s license, we believe that the statute intends to refer to the mayor, justice of the peace, ‘police’ judge and the county judge as administrative, not judicial, officers in the preliminary hearings to determine a question of fact, for instance, whether or not appellant is an habitually reckless driver, and that until and unless appellant’s license is revoked by the Department of Public Safety and appellant institutes a judicial proceeding in the County Court, as a court in conformity with art. 6687b, Sec. 31, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St, there is no case in a court and that prior thereto, there is merely a special statutory proceeding before officers acting in an administrative, not judicial capacity. See City of Big Spring v. Garlington, County Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 1095, 1097 ; Hardy v. City of Throckmorton, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 1104, 1105 ; 28 Tex.Jur., 606.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “— the prerequisite of departmental order of suspension—which in turn forms the basis of the contemplated judicial review. The Dallas Corporation Court on the other hand is itself a judicial body, with jurisdiction in all criminal cases arising under the ordinances of the particular municipality; Art. 1195, V.A.C.S. And while in section 22(a) the mayor, police judge, and justice of peace are later referred to as a”
    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.