Weaver v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
October 1991
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Forte 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Sec. 24. (a) Each county with a population of 25,000 or more according to the most recent federal census shall purchase and maintain electronic devices capable of visually recording a person arrested within the county for an offense under Article 6701Z-1, Revised Statutes, or Subdivision (2), Subsection (a), Section 19.05, Penal Code. “ ‘(b) The sheriff of the county shall determine upon approval by the county commissioners court the number of devices necessary to ensure that a peace officer arresting a defendant for an offense listed in Subsection (a) of this section may visually record the defendant’s appearance within a reasonable time after the arrest. “ ‘(c) The fact that an arresting officer or other person acting on behalf of the state failed to visually record a person arrested for an offense listed in Subsec tion (a) of this section is admissible at the trial of the offense if the offense occurred in a county required to purchase and maintain electronic devices under this section.’””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Finley v. State · State v. Yates“".... It is inconceivable to believe the legislature intended that prosecution for driving while intoxicated would be prohibited in counties of 25,000 or more population where no video was provided, but that prosecution would be permitted in counties with fewer than 25,000 population. Such a statute undoubtedly would be found to be unconstitutional as being discriminatory in its application. We hold that defendant was not denied due process of law for the failure of the State to provide a videotape of him during the arrest procedure. Grounds of error one and two are overruled."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fox
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.