Warrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2016
20 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 Ker v. State of California · Cataldo v. United States · United States v. Lipscomb · United States v. Fossler · Mills v. Wainwright
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has indicated, however, that an arrest for driving while intoxicated is not necessarily invalid merely because the arresting officer did not see the defendant drive his ear, since the defendant may still be subject to a public intoxication charge.... The Fifth Circuit has recognized that where a defendant was arrested for the “wrong” offense, the arrest is nonetheless valid where the crime for which he was arrested and the crime for which there was probable cause to believe he had committed are closely related and there is no proof of sham or fraud.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Fossler asserts that he could not have been properly arrested for driving while intoxicated because the officer did not see him driving, but rather found him leaning against his stopped car. Article 14.01(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows a warrantless arrest for a misdemean- or, which driving while intoxicated is, only when the offense is committed in the arresting officer’s presence or within his view. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has indicated, however, that an arrest for driving while intoxicated is not necessarily invalid merely'because the arresting officer did not see the defendant drive his car, since the defendant may still be subject to a public intoxication charge_ The Fifth Circuit has recognized that where a defendant was arrested for the ‘wrong’ offense, the arrest is nonetheless valid where the crime for which he was arrested and the crime for which there was probable cause to believe he had committed are closely related and there is no proof of sham or fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lopez v. State“[t]he lawfulness of an arrest by state officers is determined by the law of the state where the arrest takes place, subject to federal constitutional standards.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gilmore 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.