Martin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Ex Parte Cavazos (2006), Campbell v. State (1999)
33 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3663
Relies on Hughey v. United States · Withrow v. Williams · National Educational Support Systems, Inc. v. Autoskill, Inc. · United States v. Sharp · Hickey v. Irving Independent School District
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The judge of the court having jurisdiction of the case shall determine the conditions of community supervision and may ... impose any reasonable condition that is designed to protect or restore the community, protect or restore the victim, or punish, rehabilitate, or reform the defendant. Conditions of community supervision may include ... conditions that the defendant shall: (18) Reimburse the general revenue fund for any amounts paid from that fund to a victim, as defined by Article 56.01 of this code, of the defendant’s offense ... [[Image here]] (20) Pay all or part of the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the victim for psychological counseling made necessary by the offense ... (b) A judge may not order a defendant to make any payments as a term or condition of community supervision, except for fines, court costs, restitution to the victim ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Busby v. State · Lemos v. State“"(8) Pay his fine, if one be assessed, and all court costs whether a fine be assessed or not, in one or several sums[, and make restitution or-reparation on an)' sum that the-court shall-determine];''”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Busby v. State · Campbell v. State“A plain reading of the two provisions together leads to the conclusion that subsection (b) [of article 42.12 § 11] serves as a limitation on the restitution that can be ordered under subsection (a). Subsection (a) sets forth a broad grant of authority, providing that a court may order a variety of terms and conditions of probation, including a condition that the defendant make “restitution or reparation in any sum the court shall determine.” Subsection (b), however, imposes limitations on the types of payments that can be ordered as a condition of probation, providing that no payment can be ordered except “restitution to the victim” and certain other identified payments. Further, in the context of the probation statute as a whole, we think it logical to conclude that subsection (b)’s limitation of restitution to “the victim” refers to the victim of the crime for which the defendant has been charged, convicted and sentenced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lemos 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.