Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 2009
12 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 Ward v. State · Ex Parte Lewis · Phillips v. State · 156 Tex. Crim. 377 - Ex Parte Collier · Hamm 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The trial court number of the prior conviction; (2) the correct name of the court where the prior conviction was taken; (3) the date of the prior conviction; (4) the term of years of the prior conviction, and (5) the nature of the prior conviction.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Diaz v. State · Banks v. State““In a single ground of error, appellant complains of the order of cumulation whereby the court cumulated the punishment assessed with the punishment assessed in a prior conviction in Harris County. “The order of cumulation reads as follows: “ ‘Sentence to run from and after Defendant completes his sentence in Cause No. 273166, Harris County, Texas being served by defendant.’ “In Ward v. State, [Tex.Cr.App.,] 523 S.W.2d 681 , it was noted that this Court had recommended that cumulation orders contain: “ ‘(1) the trial number of the prior conviction; “ ‘(2) the correct name of the court where the prior conviction was taken; “ ‘(3) the date of the prior conviction; “ ‘(4) the term of years of the prior conviction; “ ‘(5) the nature of the prior conviction.’ “It was noted in Ward that orders containing less than the recommended elements of a cumulation order have been upheld. Phillips v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 97 ; Ex parte Collier, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 377 , 243 S.W.2d 177 . “In Ex parte Davis, Tex.Cr.App., 506 S.W.2d 882 , a cumulation order read: “ ‘... the sentence shall commence and begin to run when sentences in cause numbers as follows have been completed. Cause # 12,772 Kaufman County, Texas, Dallas County, Texas Cause # C-69-6998-J, C-69-6551-JK, C-70-1949-K and C-70-949-K.’ “This Court held the foregoing cumulation order in Ex parte Davis, supra, to be void. As in the instant case, the cumulation order in Davis recited, at most, only one detail — the numbers of the pri”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Ashe
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.