Alvarez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2015
23 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 Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Montgomery v. Kennedy · Gaines v. Hamman · Boone & Scarborough v. Miller
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following causes, and no other, will exonerate the defendant and his sureties, if any, from liability upon the forfeiture taken: [[Image here]] 3. The sickness of the principal or some uncontrollable circumstance which prevented his appearance at court, and it must, in every such case, be shown that his failure to appear arose from no fault on his part. The causes mentioned in this subdivision shall not be deemed sufficient to exonerate the principal and his sureties, if any, unless such principal appear before final judgment on the bond to answer the accusation against him, or show sufficient cause for not so appearing. 2 [[Image here]]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Watson v. State · Hill v. State“A judgment nisi is prima facie proof that the statutory requirements have been satisfied and the burden is on the defendant to affirmatively show otherwise. Once a prima facie case has been established, the defendant must then prove that one of the statutory requirements of the judgment nisi has not been satisfied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Aspilla v. State · Harris v. State“[p]ursuant to the express terms of Article 22.13, ... show (1) that some uncontrollable circumstance prevented the principal’s appearance at court, (2) that the principal’s failure to appear arose from no fault on his part, and (3) that the principal appeared before final judgment on the bond to answer the accusation against him (or had sufficient cause for not so appearing). 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hill 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.