Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Appellant] argues that the magistrate statute actually created “judges” in violation of the Texas Constitution and that we should reverse for this reason. We should not reach the constitutional argument unless it is necessary to determine this case. [Citations omitted.] Because we find that the magistrate conducted the revocation proceeding in violation of the statute’s specific restrictions and that this mandates reversal, we are not required to reach the constitutional argument asserted. The magistrate statute § 4(b) states that: ‘In no event may a judge refer to a magistrate a criminal case permitting the magistrate to preside over a trial on the merits either with or without a jury.’ (Emphasis added.) A trial is a ‘judicial investigation and determination of the issues between the parties.’ Gulf C. & S.F. Railway Company v. Muse, 109 Tex. 352 , 207 S.W. 897, 899 (1919). [Appellant] disputed that he had violated the conditions of his probation, [Art. 42.12 § 8(a), V.A.C.C.P.] and the revocation proceeding investigated the truth of the allegations with the testimony and cross-examination of several witnesses. A further ‘purpose of a trial is to correctly and finally determine the disputed issues between litigants.’ Southern Underwrit ers v. Kelly, 110 S.W.2d 153, 158 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1937, writ dism’d). (Emphasis added.) [Appellant’s] prison sentence and right to appeal indicate the final, not interlocutory, nature of a revocation proceeding that distinguishes a tr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State