Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 930 SW2D 673 - White v. State

White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2013

6 state decisions

40199620002010decided

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 Boykin v. State · Linwood v. NCNB Texas · State v. Mancuso · Dallas County Appraisal District v. Funds Recovery, Inc. · Welch v. McDougal

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.

  1. “According to a House Research Organization bill analysis, the supporters of the bill which enacted the language in article 47.12 argued that: [The bill] would establish specific appeals procedures governing seizure hearings that would facilitate the rapid return of the property to its owner. Current law lacks any express provision for appeals and no time limits for finalizing a seizure decision. In the meantime, the law enforcement agency or court retains the victim’s property. The appeals procedure created by [the bill] would guarantee quick and efficient case processing. House Research Organization, Bill Analysis SB 590, 73rd Leg., R.S., page 3 (May 20, 1993). According to the same report, the opponents of the bill argued that it “should limit the amount of time in which parties could appeal a seizure hearing decision.” Id. Thus, we conclude that the legislature intended to limit the time frame in which an appeal from an order under article 47.01a could be perfected and chose to limit it severely, as reflected by the plain language of article 47.12(c). Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 47.12(c) (Vernon Supp.1996).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Only an interested person who appears at a hearing under this article may appeal, and such person must give an oral notice of appeal at the conclusion of the hearing and must post an appeal bond by the end of the next business day, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Although we may believe that such a requirement is not fair, feasible, or practical, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the legislature and read the requirement out of the law when it is so plainly provided.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.