White v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 1977
13 state decisions
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 135 Tex. Crim. 567 - Hill v. State · 93 Tex. Crim. 421 - Simmons v. State · 49 Tex. Crim. 457 - Jenkins v. State · 76 Tex. Crim. 250 - Medford v. State · 46 Tex. Crim. 572 - Brown 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The evidence is sufficient to justify the jury in finding the following: “Appellant and Robert Bagwill made the journey in appellant’s car from Mineral Wells to Stephenville on a joint venture their purpose being to acquire money by the unlawful means of robbery, burglary and theft. “Having selected the filling station of deceased as a place to be robbed, appellant stopped on the opposite side of the block, and the companion Bagwill left appellant, armed with a deadly weapon, and went to the filling station. Appellant waited in his car for the return of Bagwill, as was their previously formed design, in order to carry Bagwill away after the offense and so secure the safety of his companion Bagwill. ***** “Deceased was murdered by Bagwill during the existence of and in furtherance of the common design of appellant and Bagwill to rob the deceased. The killing was such as might have been, and should have been, contemplated as the result of their design to rob by the use of a loaded pistol. “Appellant was present at the commission of the offense in the sense that ‘present’ is used in the statutes, Arts. 66 and 69, P.C., defining principals. “It was not necessary that he be in immediate contact with Bagwill, or be so situated at the time as to make him an eye or ear witness. He was present in the sense of being immediately at hand, and in the performance of his part of the planned unlawful act, a reasonable consequence of which was the murder of the victim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shon
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.