Sheffield v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 1989
2 federal appellate · 11 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 Massengale v. United States · 166 Tex. Crim. 37 - Cawley v. State · 86 Tex. Crim. 307 - Middleton v. State · 163 Tex. Crim. 587 - McGowen v. State · Williams 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In addition to the disposition made of this contention in the original opinion, it is further concluded that without regard to whether Doris Sayles innocently, or while acting as a principal, certified that Míreles appeared before her as a notary, the evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding that the appellant had the intent to defraud and was a principal in the commission of the offense charged.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sheffield v. Brooks
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.