Bowen v. Carnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “if any”) follow the format set out in the Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges: Crimes Against Persons, § C4.5, at 72-74 (State Bar of Texas 2011). This modern format may assist both the members of the jury and the advocates who must explain the jury instructions to the jury. . Weeks, 392 S.W.3d at 286-87 . . Id. 392 S.W.3d at 289 . . Id. . Id. 392 S.W.3d at 289-90 . . Id. 392 S.W.3d at 290 & n. 8. . Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805 , 810 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) ("The State ... argues that it is the court of appeals’s denial of mandamus relief that we should be reviewing rather than the respondent’s ruling directly.... [I]n practice it makes little difference whether we purport to review the court of appeals's mandamus ruling or the trial court's order.... Either way, we review the appropriateness of the trial court’s conduct.... essentially by undertaking a 'de novo application of the two pronged test’ for mandamus relief.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS

2. “under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re State