Queen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2010
12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 180th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte Vasquez · Smith v. State · 166 Tex. Crim. 255 - Sanders v. State · Fernandez v. State · Ex parte Queen
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial and appellate courts of Texas have no “inherent powers” that permit them to ignore an express statutory or constitutional mandate. This fundamental tenet of our State’s jurisprudence does not evaporate when a particular judge of such a court has a concern that a particular individual, accused of a crime, represents a risk to the public safety. Even if that concern is in some particular instance well-founded—concerning this particular instance, we express no opinion about this matter—it still has no such evaporative effect. The courts of this State are bound to follow the will of the people of this State, as that will is expressed by the people in the constitution and in the laws enacted by their duly elected representatives.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The amount of bail to be required in any case is to be regulated by the court, judge, magistrate or officer taking the bail; they are to be governed in the exercise of this discretion by the Constitution and by the following rules: 1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with. 2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression. 3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered. 4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point. 5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. State“... the fact of defendant’s failure to be in his home during the curfew hours ... in facial violation of the curfew condition of his pretrial bail, does not provide any basis for the trial court to deny appellant continued pretrial bail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller 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.