Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 SW3D 196 - Hirsch v. State

Hirsch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corp. · Rhoades v. State · PALLADIAN BLDG CO. INC. v. Nortex Foundation Designs, Inc. · Johnson v. Martin, Wise & Fitzhugh · Texas Fidelity & Bonding Co. v. City of Austin

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

  1. “In determining whether amendments are irreconcilable, text that is reenacted because of the requirement of Article III, Section 36, of the Texas Constitution is not considered to be irreconcilable with additions or omissions in the same text made by another amendment. Unless clearly indicated to the contrary, an amendment that reenacts text in compliance with that constitutional requirement does not indicate legislative intent that the reenacted text prevail over changes in the same text made by another amendment, regardless of the relative dates of enactment.”
    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.