Ex Parte Moorehouse’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Ex Parte Hargett (1991), Autry v. Wj Estelle (1983)
2 federal appellate · 40 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 Kastigar v. United States · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · Lefkowitz v. Turley · Spevack v. Klein · Gardner v. Broderick
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Though a procedure for grant of immunity has not been expressly provided by the Legislature, as the Court demonstrated in Ex parte Muncy, [ 72 Tex.Cr.R. 541 ] 163 S.W. 29 (1914), “The right under our law of the district attorney, with the knowledge and consent of the district judge, to guarantee immunity from prosecution and punishment has never been seriously questioned in this state,” id. [163 S.W.] at 38. The then extant statutory authority for the grant, id., at 45 and 54, similar to provisions in predecessor codes cited in earlier decisions to the same effect, e.g. Barrera v. State, 42 Tex. 260 , 263 (1875); Cameron v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 180 , 22 S.W. 682 (1893); Ex parte Greenhaw, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 278 , 53 S.W. 1024 (1899), have since been melded into Article 32.02. See Washburn v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 448 , 299 S.W.2d 706 (1956).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well settled that no appeal can be had from a refusal to issue or grant a writ of habeas corpus even after a hearing. However, the portion of that statement of law which we have emphasized can be confusing so, we will clarify it. In the cases which rely on that statement of law, the “hearing” which is being referred to is one which a court might hold in order to determine whether there is sufficient cause for the writ to be issued or whether the merits of the claim should be addressed. That type of hearing is not the same as one which is held to ultimately resolve the merits of an applicant’s claim. When a hearing is held on the merits of an applicant’s claim and the court subsequently rules on the merits of that claim, the loosing [sic] party may appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ernst 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.