Hearne v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Geesa v. State · Cain v. State · King v. State · Paulson v. State · Denton 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.
“We do not accept the contention that to operate a vehicle within the meaning of the statute, the driver's personal effort must cause the automobile to either move or not move. Purposely causing or restraining actual movement is not the only definition of `operating' a motor vehicle. In other words, we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if [the defendant] exerted personal effort upon his vehicle [ ... ] for its intended purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dornbusch v. State“Barton v. State, 882 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.). However, the court of criminal appeals has held that, to find operation of a motor vehicle,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dornbusch 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.