Thomas v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, regarding criminal law matters, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Judges thereof shall have the power to issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, procedendo, prohibition, cer-tiorari, and such other writs as may be necessary to protect its jurisdiction or enforce its judgments.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Smith v. Flack · State v. Henson

2. ““We therefore conclude that the additional provisions in the amendment gave this Court authority to issue extraordinary writs, including the power to issue writs of mandamus to compel a speedy trial in a criminal case.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Flack · State Ex Rel. Vance v. Routt

3. ““[L]egislative history shows that Senate Joint Resolution No. 18 was drafted, among other things, to expressly give the Court of Criminal Appeals the authority to issue writs of mandamus to compel speedy trials in criminal cases in this State. This writer and other members of this court appeared before legislative committees of both the Senate and the House to explain its provisions, and to point out that under the then existing constitutional provisions the Court of Criminal Appeals, the court of last resort for criminal matters in this State, did not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to compel speedy trials in criminal eases. “Under [the prior] constitutional provision and decisional law, this court could only issue the writ of mandamus to protect its appellate jurisdiction or its original jurisdiction to issue the writ of habe-as corpus. Thus when a defendant in a criminal case sought a writ of mandamus to compel a speedy trial, he could not obtain one from the court of last resort in criminal cases because neither this court’s appellate jurisdiction nor its original jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus was in need of protection. Such defendant was required to apply to the Supreme Court of Texas, a court of generally civil jurisdiction, for the needed mandamus since such court . . . had the general authority to issue the writ of mandamus. . “It was in part to correct this anomaly that Senate Joint Resolution No. 18 was drafted to give this court orig”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Henson