Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 SW2D 192 - Garza v. State

Garza v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2015

22 state decisions

120199520002010decided

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 Vernon v. State · Breazeale v. State · Bigley v. State · Diaz v. State · Luken 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Except as otherwise provided in these rules, in the interest of expediting a decision or for other good cause shown, a court of appeals or the Court of Criminal Appeals may suspend requirements and provisions of any rule in a particular case on application of a party or on its own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with its direction.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(a) Relationship to Jurisdiction. These rules shall not be construed to expand or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Supreme Court as established by law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The time limits set forth in the Rules of Appellate Procedure are not discretionary. The courts of appeals have no authority to suspend the operation of a rule of appellate procedure in order to create jurisdiction in the court of appeals where no jurisdiction exists.... If appellate courts were able to suspend the timetables, to which they are held to comply, there would be nothing this Court could do to promote timeliness of the appellate process and the very purpose of the Rules would be undermined.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.