State v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Ex Parte Briseno (2004), State Ex Rel. Lykos v. Fine (2011)
35 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 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona · Unisys Corp. v. Pickering · Trimble v. Itz · Eichelberger v. Eichelberger · Garcia v. Dial
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant’s 2005 motion for DNA testing has fairly alleged, and shown by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim’s lone attacker is the donor of the material for which appellant seeks DNA testing. Thus, on this record, exculpatory DNA test results, excluding appellant as the donor of this material, would establish appellant’s innocence. The legislative history of Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure very clearly shows that this is precisely the situation in which the Legislature intended to provide post-conviction DNA testing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whitfield v. State“To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the State must demonstrate that: (1) there is no other adequate legal remedy, and (2) there is a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought.”); see also Neveu v. Cul-ver, 105 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). 6 . Amended Motion at 1. 7 . See Stuart Banner, The Death Penalty.- An American History 121-22 (2002) (by 1859,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“be in furtherance of some other action for which there is an explicit grant of jurisdiction.” Id. at 595 . 49 . Id. 50 . Id. 51 . Id. 52 . Patrick, supra, at 595 . 53 . Id. at 596 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holloway
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.