Roberts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “This concept is illustrated in the Texas Supreme Court’s landmark decision in In Re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660, 661-62 (Tex.1951). There, the Texas Supreme Court decided that the factual-conclusivity clause did not prohibit it from taking jurisdiction to decide, as a matter of law, that the direct-appeal couH applied an incorrect standard (a no-evidence standard) in addressing a party’s factual-sufficiency claim. Id.; see also Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 634-35 (Tex.1986) (In Re King’s Estate established that “the supreme court might take jurisdiction, notwithstanding the finality of judgments of the courts of civil appeals on fact questions, in order to determine if a correct standard has been applied by the intermediate courts”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jacob Matthew Kiffe v. State

2. “In this case, we cannot conclude that the Court of Appeals’ factual-sufficiency decision improperly applied “rules of law.” See Dyson, 692 S.W.2d at 457; Choate, 44 S.W. at 69-70 . Its opinion does not apply an incorrect standard by treating appellant’s factual-sufficiency challenge as some other challenge, as was the case in In Re King’s Estate, 244 S.W.2d at 661 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jacob Matthew Kiffe v. State

3. “requirement meant to assure that Texas' constitutional right to trial by jury remain `inviolate[,' TEX. CONST. art. I, § 15,] requires a direct-appeal court to exercise its factual-sufficiency jurisdiction with `deferential standards of review' to jury verdicts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Johnson v. State