Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2017
6 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 Worford v. Stamper · Shenandoah Associates v. J & K Properties, Inc. · State v. Knight · Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Katopodis · Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Martin
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A person who has been placed under a custodial or noncustodial arrest for commission of either a felony or misdemeanor is entitled to have all records and files relating to the arrest expunged if: [[Image here]] (2) the person has been released and the charge, if any, has not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending and there was no court-.ordered community supervision under Article 42.12 for the offense, ... provided that: . (A) regardless of whether any statute of limitations exists for the offense and whether any limitations period for the offense has expired, an indictment or information charging the person with the commission of a misdemeanor offense based on the person’s arrest or charging the person -with the commission of any felony offense arising out of the same transaction for which the person was arrested: (i) has not been presented against the person at any time following the arrest, and [[Image here]] (ii) if presented at any time following the arrest,. was dismissed or quashed, and the court finds that the indictment or information was dismissed or quashed because the person completed a pretrial intervention program authorized under Section 76.011, Government Code, ■or because the presentment had been made because of mistake, false information, or other similar reason indicating absence of probable cause at the time of the dismissal to believe the person committed the offense, or because the indictment or information was void....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Stiles · Ex parte Barham“Thomas can meet his burden of proving that the indictment presented against him lacked probable cause by showing that his daughter had made false accusations. It follows that he can show that the indictment was dismissed for the same reason. Assuming Thomas can prove the indictment was presented due to false information, the dismissal must ultimately stem from the false information, considering no other evidence was presented. Obviously, the prosecution cannot find an outcry witness to a crime that did not exist. The dismissal would go to a substantive defect, rather than a procedural one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Thomas
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.