Kutner v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2010
5 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 Ordunez v. Bean · State Ex Rel. Vance v. Routt · Baylor v. Commonwealth · Ex Parte Spring · Reed v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) When a person is charged with a misdemeanor offense under this Act, other than a violation of Section 50 or 51, 6 committed while operating a motor vehicle, the court: (1) in its discretion may defer proceedings and allow the person 90 days to present evidence that, subsequent to the alleged act, the person has successfully completed a defensive driver’s course approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety or other driving safety course approved by the court; or (2) shall defer proceedings and allow the person 90 days to present written evidence that, subsequent to the alleged act, the person has successfully completed a driving safety course approved by the court, if [three additional requirements are satisfied]. 7”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Hollis“The caption [to section 143A] describes the statute as' “[a]n Act relating to a driving safety course as an alternative to prosecution for certain traffic offenses .... ” When a person stands “charged” with an offense he may, under circumstances prescribed by the Act, choose between going to trial or taking a driving course. After foregoing the “alternative to prosecution,” choosing to go to trial, and after having been convicted, he may not invoke the statute on appeal to the county court at law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hollis“In Beardsall v. State, 9 Tex.App. 262 (1880), it was held that the effect of the judgment of reversal was not merely to set aside the immediate proceedings of the court below from which the appeal was taken, but was to place the entire cause in the same position in which it was before there was any trial of it. See also Cox v. State, 7 Tex.App. 495 (1879); Hughes v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 584 , 152 S.W. 912 (1913).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.