Thornton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably Lowery v. State (1973), Paprskar v. State (1972)
4 federal appellate · 28 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 United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Chimel v. California · Stovall v. Denno · Gilbert v. California
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where it is shown by satisfactory proof to a peace officer, upon the representation of a credible person, that a felony has been committed, and that the offender is about to escape, so that there is no time to procure a warrant, such peace officer may, without warrant, pursue and arrest the accused.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sutton v. State · Rose v. State“"Two or more defendants who are jointly or separately indicted or complained against for the same offense or any offense growing out of the same transaction may be, in the discretion of the court, tried jointly or separately as to one or more defendants; provided that in any event either defendant may testify for the other or on behalf of the State; and provided further, that in cases in which, upon timely motion to sever, and evidence introduced thereon, it is made known to the court that there is a previous admissible conviction against one defendant or that a joint trial would be prejudicial to any defendant, the court shall order a severance as to the defendant whose joint trial would prejudice the other defendant or defendants."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morales v. State““In Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 842 , it was observed that a timely objection to identification testimony must be made at the first opportunity. This was not done, and no reason is shown for delaying his objection. See Lucas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 444 S.W.2d 638 ; Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 180 , and Evans v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 444 S.W.2d 641 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Green 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.