High v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Johnson v. State (1994), In the Interest of E.L.Y. (2002)
118 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 Anders v. California · Douglas v. People of State of California · Currie v. State · Johnson v. United States · Guillory 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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the brief should discuss the evidence adduced at trial, point out where pertinent testimony may be found in the record, (2) refer to pages in the record where objections were made, the nature of the objection, the trial court’s ruling, and (3) discuss either why the trial court’s ruling was correct or why the appellant was not harmed. [Emphasis added.]”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re MAD · Stafford v. State““Following the giving of notice of appeal, the first decision on the merits of an appeal belongs to the trial court. Article 40.09(12), V.A.C.C.P., provides: “ ‘It shall be the duty of the trial court to decide from the briefs and oral arguments, if any, whether the defendant should be granted a new trial by the trial court. This duty shall be performed within the period of thirty days immediately after the state’s brief is filed, or, if none be filed, then within the period of thirty days immediately after the last day on which the state’s brief could be timely filed. Omission of the court to perform this duty within such period shall constitute refusal of the court to grant a new trial to defendant.’ “This rather unique provision in our appellate procedure was designed to give a conscientious trial judge the opportunity to see the briefs, the contentions and the appellate record as it will appear on review to the Court of Criminal Appeals with the authority at that point to grant a new trial if the trial judge believes the same is called for. If the reversible error is apparent, there is no logic in allowing the case to proceed through appellate process until the Court of Criminal Appeals reverses the case. Much delay and waste of judicial time and effort occurs otherwise. There was another purpose to the above provision and that was the hope that trial judges in performing their duty thereunder might lessen the heavy caseload of the Court of Criminal Appeals.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State
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.