Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 SW3D 742 - Marbut v. State

Marbut v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Drope v. Missouri · Marin v. State · State v. Roberts · Vidaurri 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Article 2.07 does not concern the jurisdiction of the trial court or the constitutionality of a statute. Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 279 . Furthermore, a defendant’s right to have a prosecutor qualified under article 2.07 to represent the State is not a right “so fundamental to the proper functioning of our adjudicatory process” that it cannot be forfeited. Id. at 278 . Article 2.07 sets out a procedural process for the appointment of an ad hoc district attorney. If those procedures are not properly followed, the defendant should object. Failure to do so, under rule 33.1, forfeits the complaint on appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “rights in the second category ... “do not vanish so easily. Although a litigant might give them up and, indeed, has a right to do so, he is never deemed to have done so in fact unless he says so plainly, freely, and intelligently, sometimes in writing and always on the record.” Regarding these rights, “the judge has an independent duty to implement them absent an effective waiver by him. As a consequence, failure of the judge to implement them at trial is an error which might be urged on appeal whether or not it was first urged in the trial court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[0]ur system may be thought to contain rules of three distinct kinds: (1) absolute requirements and prohibitions; (2) rights of litigants which must be implemented by the system unless expressly waived; and (3) rights of litigants which are to be implemented upon request. In the present context, the most important thing to remember about the Texas law of procedural default is that it only applies to the last category.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.