State v. Wofford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining a statute’s constitutionality, we begin with a presumption of the statute’s validity. Ex parte Anderson, 902 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. refd); Skillern v. State, 890 S.W.2d 849, 860 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994, pet. refd). We presume that the legislature did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in enacting the statute and that it had due regard for constitutional requirements. Ex parte Granviel, 561 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). It is the challenger’s burden to show that the statute is unconstitutional. Id.; Anderson, 902 S.W.2d at 698 , Every reasonable intendment and presumption is made in favor of the constitutionality and validity of the statute. Skillern, 890 S.W.2d at 860 . The statute must be upheld if a reasonable construction can be ascertained which will render the statute constitutional and carry out the legislative intent. Ely v. State, 582 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Constitutional issues will not be decided upon a broader basis than the record requires. State v. Garcia, 823 S.W.2d 793, 799 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1992, pet. refd).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Frieling v. State

2. ““Element of offense” means: (A) the forbidden conduct; (B) the required culpability; (C) any required result; and (D) the negation of any exception in the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sanchez v. State

3. “need only give fair warning in light of common understanding and practices.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Ellis