Buchanan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana))
Relationships
Relies on Payton v. New York · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Watson · Minnesota v. Olson · Hulit 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the objection is not specific, and the legal basis is not obvious, it does not serve the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule for an appellate court to reach the merits of a forfeitable issue that is essentially raised for the first time on appeal.”) (emphasis in original). .Compare Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 775 (Tex.Cr.App.2003) (defendant’s warned statement inadmissible because”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martinez 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.