Rich v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
April 2017
most recently cited
26 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth))
Relationships
Relies on Morgan v. Illinois · Motilla v. State · Johnson v. State · Jones v. State · Janecka 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, the jury instructions, the State’s theory and any defensive theories, closing arguments, voir dire, and whether the State emphasized the error.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court of Appeals found this to be non-constitutional error and applied Rule 44.2(b). Rich does not contest this conclusion, so we assume that to be the proper rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tijerina v. State
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.