Morrow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The record reflects that an evidentia-ry hearing was never held on appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. “Article 11.07, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which governs the procedure to be taken in post conviction writs, was construed by this Court in Ex parte Young, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 824 , where it was said: “ ‘If the undisputed facts or the facts resolved by him after hearing warrant such proceedings, the judge of the convicting court may be in position to afford the applicant rights which have been denied him, such as counsel on appeal; record on appeal; effective aid of counsel on appeal; determination of voluntariness of confession; and nunc pro tunc proceedings to supply or correct the record. See Ex parte Brown, Tex.Cr.App. [ 152 Tex.Cr.R. 3 ], 210 S.W.2d 597 ; Ex parte Church, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 357 , 292 S.W.2d 120 ; Ex parte Hannen, 155 Tex. Cr.R. 10 [ 228 S.W.2d 864 ], 230 S.W.2d 236 ; Ex parte Brian, Tex.Cr.App., 389 S.W.2d 467 ; Ex parte Mixon, Tex.Cr.App., 396 S.W.2d 417 .’ “In Parris v. State, 453 S.W.2d 505 , this Court said: “ ‘The procedure discussed in Ex parte Young, supra, was not designed to authorize a trial judge without a hearing to utilize the office of an out of time appeal to resolve disputed fact issues presented to him by an application for post conviction habeas corpus relief.’ “In the instant case, an evidentiary hearing was not had upon appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. No hearing was had upon the question of appellant’s rig”

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