Ramos v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 state decisions

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This court has for some time held that the distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence is that the latter applies directly to the ultimate fact to be proved, while circumstantial evidence is the direct proof of a minor fact which, by logical inference, demonstrates the fact to be proved. Beason v. State, 43 Tex.Cr.R. 442 , 67 S.W. 96 (1902); Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 449 , 72 S.W.2d 269 (1934); Ramos v. State, 478 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) (on State's Motion for Rehearing)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hankins v. State · Logan v. State

2. “defendant has a right to an affirmative instruction on every defensive issue raised by the evidence whether the evidence is produced by the state or by the defense, whether it is strong or feeble, whether it is unimpeached or contradicted, or whether it is conflicting.” See e.g. Ramos v. State, 478 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). . Justice Junell’s dissenting opinion in the court of appeals correctly espouses this very point. See Saxton, 776 S.W.2d at 689 . We also agree with Justice Junell’s opinion that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saxton v. State

3. “Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Carolyn Joyce Siroky, did, in Van Zandt County, Texas, on or about July 16, 1980, intentionally or knowingly deliver to Burton Christian a controlled substance, to-wit: Methamphetamine, you will find the defendant guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Siroky v. State