Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 724 S.W.2d 129 - Bucek v. State

Bucek v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2015

9 state decisions

601987199020002010decided

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 157 Tex. Crim. 497 - Threet v. State · Luedke v. State · Coleman v. State · Rivera v. State · Sandoval 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The language used to define each offense enumerated in the Penal Code begins with a statement, `a person commits an offense if....' Likewise, the language prescribing extraordinary punishment for an offense because of aggravating factors consistently begins with the phrase, `if it be shown on the trial....' As a result, the conclusion is inescapable that subsection (b) defines the offense of driving while intoxicated. Subsection (c) prescribes the ordinary punishment for that offense and subsections (d), (e) and (f) prescribe extraordinary punishment which is available in the event of certain aggravating factors. [footnote omitted]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(b)A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while driving or operating a motor vehicle in a public place.... (c) Except as provided by Subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this article, an offense under this article is punishable by: (1) a fine of not less than $100 or more than $2,000; and (2) confinement in jail for a term of not less than 72 hours or more than two years. (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this article that the person has previous ly been convicted one time of an offense under this article, the offense is punishable by: (1) a fine of not less than $300 or more than $2,000; and (2) confinement in jail for a term of not less than 15 days or more than two years. (e) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under the article that the person has previously been convicted two or more times of an offense under this article, the offense is punishable by: (1) a fine of not less than $500 or more than $2,000; and (2) confinement in jail for a term of not less than 30 days or more than two years or imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than 60 days or more than five years. (f) If it is shown on the trial of a person punished for an offense under Subsection (c), (d), or (e) of this article that the person committed the offense and as a direct result of the offense another person suffered serious bodily injury, the minimum term of confinement for the offense is increased by 60 days and the minimum and maximum fines f”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “confinement for 30 days and 70 days confinement probated for two years.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.