Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 SW3D 592 - Murphy v. State

Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Estrada v. State (2010), Gardner v. State (2009)

2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

260200320102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Adams v. Texas · Weatherford v. Bursey

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If an offense has been committed within the state and it cannot readily be determined within which county or counties the commission took place, trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides, in the county in which he is apprehended, or in the county to which he is extradited.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it is plain that prospective jurors may form their own definitions of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and they are not challengeable for cause based upon the type and amount of evidence they require to reach that level of confidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “dictates its findings and conclusions to the court reporter, and they are transcribed and made a part of the statement of facts, filed with the district clerk and made a part of the appellate record.” Murphy v. State, 112 S.W.3d 592, 601 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); see also Parr v. State, 658 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). The findings”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.