Ex Parte Byers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The defendant may not be released on bail pending the appeal from any felony conviction where the punishment exceeds 15 years confinement but shall immediately be placed in custody and the bail discharged.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. State · Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist.

2. ““I would overrule Fowler to the extent it holds that the use of habeas corpus has been replaced by Article 44.04(g), supra, providing for an appeal from issues pertaining to bail pending appeal covered by said statute and in declaring a policy of no review in absence of an appeal under Article 44.04, supra. “I begin by noting that ‘subsection (d)’ of Article 44.04, supra, relied upon in part in Fowler for the conclusion above stated, is set forth in footnote 1 on p. 244 of the Fowler opinion. It is, however, section or subsection (d) of the 1965 version of Article 44.04, supra, not the section or subsection (d) of the 1977 version of said Article 44.04 under consideration in Fowler. “Of course, it is a general rule that habe-as corpus cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, but I do not conclude that the inclusion of § (g) in the 1977 amendment of Article 44.04, supra, was intended by the Legislature as a curtailment of the constitutional (Article V, § 5, Texas Const.) or statutory authority of this court to consider applications for writs of habeas corpus involving issues concerning bail pending appeal. “When it provided by § (a) for a separate appeal to this court from any judgment or order of the trial court concerning bail pending appeal with preference being given to such appeals, the Legislature undoubtedly may have been concerned aboiit the new provisions of §§ (c) and (d) providing the trial judge may deny bail on appeal where the punishment does not exceed 15 y”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex Parte Spaulding

3. “[p]ending the appeal from any felony conviction other than a conviction described in Subsection (b) of this section (where the punishment does not exceed 15 years confinement), the trial court may deny bail and commit the defendant to custody if there then exists good cause to believe that the defendant would not appear when his conviction became final or is likely to commit another offense while on bail, permit the defendant to remain at large on the existing bail, or, if not then on bail, admit him to reasonable bail until his conviction becomes final.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Faerman v. State