Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 Tex. Crim. 207 - Corley v. State

158 Tex. Crim. 207 - Corley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
April 2001
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2001

3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

40195319601970198019902000decided

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 Roy v. State · Childress v. State · 134 Tex. Crim. 504 - Childress v. State · Restivo v. Franklin

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

  1. “"The evidence introduced in support of the above allegations of the indictment shows that the judgment was rendered and entered and sentence pronounced in said Cause No. 72-AB in Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas, on the date alleged, and not in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County as alleged. "The two district courts above named are separate and distinct courts. Arts. 52-1 and 52-8, C.C.P., as amended, Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., p. 663, Vernon's Ann.C. C.P. Arts. 52-1, 52-8. "consequently there was a variance between the allegations in the indictment and the proof. The variance between the allegations as to the district court in which the appellant was previously convicted and the proof is fatal to a conviction. [Citations omitted]."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “consequently there was a variance between the allegations in the indictment and the proof. The variance between the allegations as to the district court in which the appellant was previously convicted and the proof is fatal to a conviction. [Citations omitted].”
    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.