Zaragosa v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Dugard v. State (1985), Perkins v. Court of Appeals for Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas (1987)
33 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 Trevino v. State · Hathorne v. State · United States v. Honorable June L. Green, United States District Court Judge · 10 Cal. App. 3d 129 - People v. Thompson · State v. Harper
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) A motion for new trial, if filed, shall be filed prior to or within 30 days after the date the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. "(b) One or more amended motions for new trial may be filed without leave of court before any preceding motion for new trial filed by the movant is overruled and within 30 days after the date the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. "(c) In the event an original or amended motion for new trial is not determined by written order signed within 75 days after the date the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, it shall be considered overruled by operation of law on expiration of that period. "(d) It shall be the duty of the proponent of an original or amended motion for new trial to present the same to the court within 10 days after the same is filed. However, at the discretion of the judge, an original motion or amended motion for new trial may be presented or hearing thereon completed after such 10-day period. Such delayed hearing shall not operate to extend the 75-day time limit within the original or amended motion must be determined. "(e) Within the time limits prescribed in this article, a motion for new trial may be filed after the expiration of the term at which the date the sentence was imposed or suspended in open court, either during a new term of court or during vacation, and a motion for new trial may be determined in vacation or at a new term of court, and need not be determined during the term at whi”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dugard v. State“[W]e find the trial court had no power to grant the new trial as it did, even though its concern about straightening the matter out without an appeal was commendable. ... [W]e conclude that the court’s lack of authority to order a new trial sua sponte made a nullity of the second trial and conviction, and we find it unnecessary to entertain appellant’s claim of double jeopardy. It does not follow that the original conviction ought to be overturned, but the cause shall be returned to the trial court to proceed as if it had not granted the new trial on its own motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Richards v. State““We are not unmindful of the provisions of Article 40.09, § 12, V.A.C.C.P. [footnote omitted], as to the authority of the trial court to grant a new trial during the appellate process, but we conclude that such authority is limited by its very provisions of the statute to the time the defendant has been sentenced, gives notice of appeal and files an appellate brief asking in effect for a new trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stevenson 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.