Ex Parte Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2012
4 state decisions
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 Tate v. Short · John Rooney v. State of North Dakota · 158 Tex. Crim. 313 - Hill v. State · Donald v. Jones · Millican 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under these amendments, the trial court may, when a defendant is to be fined, order the defendant to pay the entire fine and costs at the time of the pronouncement of sentence, order the defendant to pay the entire fine and costs at a later date, or order the defendant to pay specified portions of the fine and costs at designated intervals. The old statutes did not provide for delayed or installment payments; they required that the defendant pay the entire fine in a lump sum at the time of sentence or go to jail until he paid. “The new amendments are not ex post facto laws as regards their application to the appellant. A law which changes the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed is an ex post facto law as prohibited by Tex.Const., Art. I, Sec. 16, Vernon’s Ann.St. and U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, only if it inflicts a greater punishment than did the previous law. Rooney v. North Dakota, 196 U.S. 319 , 25 S.Ct. 264 , 49 L.Ed. 494 ; Hill v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 313 , 256 S.W.2d 93 ; Millican v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 195 , 167 S.W.2d 188 . Compare In re Hunt, 28 Tex.App. 361 , 13 S.W. 145 ; Ex Parte Alegria, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 868 ; and Donald v. Jones, 445 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1971). In the case at bar, the punishment has not been substantially altered ; the only change has occurred in the method of collection of the fine and costs. This change has the effect of mitigating the punishment, because it makes it easier for a defendant to pay his fines. In t”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Tate
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.