Ex Parte Hughes’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2002
7 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 Cowan v. Fourth Court of Appeals · Ex Parte Mendez
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... Such an affirmative finding is not a recitation of the offense in the judgment with the words ‘deadly weapon,’ ‘firearm,’ or other similar phrases added to the offense for which a defendant is convicted. Nor is an affirmative finding made and entered when the judgment reflects the verdict of the jury and that verdict refers to a weapon.” (emphasis in original) ⅜ ⅝ ⅝ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ “... Although the jury’s verdict as the trier of fact in certain circumstances may constitute an affirmative finding being made, Polk, supra; it is necessary for an affirmative finding to be entered separately and specifically in the judgment of the court by the trial court.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Poe · Hooks v. State“[t]here must be a separate and specific affirmative finding entered by the trial court in addition to the recitation of the offense for which the defendant is convicted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Patrick 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.