Alvarez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably State v. Bates (1994), Ex Parte Madding (2002)
35 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 Lone Star Cement Corporation v. Fair · Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co. v. Roberts · Mathes v. Kelton · Peach v. State · Nolan v. Bettis
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to correctly reflect from the records of the court a judgment actually made by it, but which for some reason was not entered of record at the proper time. Holway v. Holway, 506 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso, 1974, no writ). Even though thirty days have passed after the entry of a judgment, a trial court retains the power to enter a nunc pro tunc order correcting any ‘clerical error’ which may appear in the judgment. Quintanilla v. Seagraves Ford Inc., 522 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi, 1975, no writ). Whether an error is judicial or clerical in nature has been held to be a question of law. Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. 1978). It has been noted that an error in the entry of a judgment will be styled as ‘clerical’ in nature, so long as the error did not come about as the product of judicial reasoning. Nolan v. Bettis, 562 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin, 1978, no writ).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Madding · Miller 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.