Grantham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2008
9 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 51 Tex. Crim. 595 - Woods v. State · Grandstaff v. State · 166 Tex. Crim. 255 - Sanders v. State · 112 Tex. Crim. 171 - Jones v. State · Breed 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The following causes, and no other, will exonerate the defendant and his sureties, if any, from liability upon the forfeiture taken: ****** “3. The sickness of the principal or some uncontrollable circumstance which prevented his appearance at court, and it must, in every such case, be shown that his failure to appear arose from no fault on his part. The causes mentioned in this subdivision shall not be deemed sufficient to exonerate the principal and his sureties, if any, unless such principal appear before final judgment on the bond to answer the accusation against him, or show sufficient cause for not so appearing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. James v. State“it is obvious that if [the principal] was confined in the state penitentiary of the state of Iowa, it was his fault and his conduct that put him there, and he and his sureties could not be exonerated from liability by reason of his own act and conduct, which may have made it impossible for him to appear.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. State“The fact that the charge against the principal Granthum in this state is a misdemeanor which may be prosecuted after the felony sentence in Nebraska has been served, whereas Williams had been convicted in this state of a felony, convinces us that the reasoning of the Williams case should not be applied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill 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.