Ex Parte Preston’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Mallett v. State (2001), Cook v. State (1995)
30 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 Green v. United States · Arizona v. Washington · Crist v. Bretz · Downum v. United States · Vanderbilt 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Finally, the State contends the first and third counts of the indictment were never abandoned.... In its motion for rehearing, the State argues: “It is clear from the record of this case that the State was not abandoning, either constructively or aetu ally, the other two counts.” The State’s argument is without merit. If the counts were not preserved for future prosecution, prior to the time the jury was impaneled and sworn, appellant was necessarily placed in jeopardy for the offenses alleged in the first and third counts and may not be subsequently prosecuted for those offenses. Ex Parte Seelies, 511 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex.Crim.App.1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewis v. State“In a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled and sworn.”
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.