Davenport v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[R]es judicata is the doctrine that an existing final judgment or decree, rendered on the merits without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, on a matter within its jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all other actions or suits in the same court, or in any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction, on points and matters in issue in the first suit.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Showery v. State · Showery v. State

2. ““At a revocation of probation proceeding, a defendant need not be afforded the full range of constitutional' and statutory protections available at a criminal trial. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). At such a proceeding, guilt or innocence is not at issue, and the trial court is not concerned with determining the defendant’s original criminal culpability. ‘The question at a revocation hearing is whether the appellant broke the contract he made with the court after the determination of his guilt.’ Kelly v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 483 S.W.2d 467, 469 . Also of significance is the fact that ‘. . . the result of such a hearing to revoke is not a conviction but a finding upon which the trial court might exercise its discretion by revoking or continuing probation.’ Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 200 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1078 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 667 (emphasis added). ‘A probation revocation hearing is not ... a criminal prosecution.’ Hill v. State, supra. It has been denominated as ‘administrative in nature.’ Hill v. State, supra.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bennett v. State · Ruedas v. State

3. “[Appellant] alleged that the unsuccessful use of a charge of an assault to murder Mata in proceedings to revoke his probation constituted former jeopardy. The allegation in a motion to revoke probation that probationer has committed a particular offense when the motion is heard by the court does not constitute jeopardy and will not bar a subsequent prosecution for such offense. Especially is this true in the case at bar where the court declined to revoke probation. The court therefore properly declined to consider the plea.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re DB · Ex Parte Tarver