Weaver v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2012
21 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Schmerber v. State of California · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Wilson v. State · Denby 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order to fix the time of an accused’s unlawful driving to support a Conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, there must be some independent evidence" of: (1) how recently the vehicle had been driven, Rawls v. State, 167 Tex.Crim.lt. 106, 318 S.W.2d 662 (1958); or (2) how much time had elapsed between the accident and the arrival of the police officer, Sinast v. State, 688 S.W.2d [631] at 632 [ (Tex.App.1985) ], so as to furnish the jury with an informed basis for determining the relationship, if any, between the accused’s driving and his intoxication, if proven.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“• Appellant’s mother and two wrecker drivers arrived at the scene of the accident before Trooper Hackney did. • Trooper Hackney was dispatched to the scene at approximately 2:00 a.m. on July 7, 2006. • The preliminary breath test confirmed the presence of alcohol in appellant’s breath, and the Intoxilyzer registered appellant’s alcohol concentration at 0.135 at 3:32 a.m. • Based on the results of the HGN (horizontal gaze nystagmus) test that he had given appellant, Trooper Hackney formed an opinion that appellant was operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. • Appellant told Trooper Hackney that he did not know how he had lost control, but that he lost control of the vehicle and ended up in the ditch. • In Trooper Hackney’s opinion, the accident was “pretty much due to drinking, unsafe speed because it was wet out there, the roads were wet, that he failed to drive in a single lane and drove off the side of the road there and hit the pole.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Scillitani 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.