Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
April 2017
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 22nd Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Almanza v. State · Harris v. State · Highwarden v. State · Hutch v. State · Arline 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The term “normal use,” means a normal non-intoxicated person. Whether or not the defendant had the normal use of his mental and physical faculties does not require proof of the defendant’s normal abilities. Rather, it means that the faculties which must be tested belong to the defendant. You should consider if the defendant could use his faculties on the occasion in question in the manner in which the normal non-intoxicated person would be able to use his faculties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ford 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.