Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 SW3D 173 - Reyna v. State

Reyna v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 86 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland))

Relationships

Relies on Williams v. State · Jones v. State · Cantu v. State · Willover v. State · Green 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) In General.—As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that: (1) the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that: (A) stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context[.]”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'did not clearly articulate' that the Confrontation Clause demanded admission of the evidence”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[B]oth Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Texas Rule of Evidence 103 are judge-protecting rules of error preservation. The basic principle of both rules is that of party responsibility. We recognized that the party complaining on appeal (whether it be the State or the defendant) about a trial court's admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge's attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise application to the evidence in question. The issue ... is not whether the trial court's ruling is legally correct in every sense, but whether the complaining party on appeal brought to the trial court's attention the very complaint that party is now making on appeal. 24”
    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.