Catching v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1998
8 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 138 Tex. Crim. 51 - Martinez v. State · Hoyle v. State · 160 Tex. Crim. 432 - Mayberry v. State · State v. Rupe · 101 Tex. Crim. 180 - Ogburn 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If such transactions disclosed, by inference or otherwise, that appellant was engaged in the commission of other acts of abortion, it was nevertheless admissible as a part of the res gestae. ⅜ ⅛ ⅝ ⅝ # * “If the State’s proof of the home of appellant and the furniture, instruments, and equipment therein and the facts showing the use of such home and contents on the witness for the purpose of aborting her for pay show that appellant was a professional abortionist or that her home contained a room equipped as an abortion operating room, such result does not change the rule as to the admissibility of such evidence as a part of the res gestae. “Nor did the evidence become inadmissible because appellant did not testify or otherwise controvert the testimony as to her acts and intent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Arnott 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.