De La Rosa v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Smith v. State (1974), Williams v. State (1991)
72 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 Holt v. United States · 167 Tex. Crim. 627 - Mathis v. State · 164 Tex. Crim. 362 - Grizzell v. State · 102 Tex. Crim. 628 - Plair v. State · Platt 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he right of being heard ... carries with it the right of counsel to interrogate the members of the jury panel to the end that he may form his own conclusion, after his personal contact with the juror, as to whether in counsel's judgment he would be acceptable to him[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jacobs v. State · Abron v. State“... although time constraints on voir dire are a legitimate concern of a trial judge, the paramount concern in a case such as this must be the appellant’s freedom to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges. We cannot improve upon our Presiding Judge’s observation: It is always commendable for a trial court to dispatch business with promptness and expedition, but this salutary result must never be attained at the risk of denying to a party on trial a substantial right.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McCarter v. State · Smith v. State“We recognize that it is not only the right but the duty of the trial court to confine the examination of prospective jurors within reasonable limits. If this was not so, some trials would never terminate. Grizzell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 362 , 298 S.W.2d 816 (1956). This duty does not carry with it, however, the authority to refuse appellant's counsel the privilege of examining each juror individually within reasonable limits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harris 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.