Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 330 SW3D 301 - Uranga v. State

Uranga v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana))

Relationships

Relies on Smith v. Phillips · Jones v. State · State v. Morales · Franklin v. State · Uranga 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]here was no requirement of a mistrial on a theory that bias must be implied to the juror.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “neither the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nor the United States Supreme Court has adopted the implied bias doctrine when it is discovered in the middle of a punishment trial that a juror is a victim of the defendant’s extraneous (misdemeanor-level) conduct, we shall not follow Uranga’s suggestion that such a doctrine must be applied in this case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[n]either the federal nor the state constitution has been held to require an 'implied bias' doctrine.”
    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.