Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 SW2D 744 - Cherry v. State

Cherry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
February 2005
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2005 · most notably Ex Parte Granviel (1978), Stoker v. State (1989)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 50 state decisions

2501972198019902000decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Abel v. United States · Boulden v. Holman · Martin 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““... (d) For expenses incurred for purposes of investigation and expert testimony, a reasonable fee to be set by the court but in no event to exceed $500;” (emphasis added)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The appellant acknowledges that the maximum sum for investigatory fees permitted by law under the provisions of Article 26.05, Sec. 1(d), V.A.C.C.P.,3 was provided and expended in his behalf. The appellant then asserts that ‘The record in this case adequately shows the need for funds in excess of $250.00 provided for by law for expert witness and investigation costs (As recognized by the trial court), and that the denial of the right to such money constitutes a deprivation of the right to an effective presentation of all defensive issues available to the accused.’ The appellant’s brief makes the above conclusion and does not refer to any portions of this voluminous record showing how the appellant was harmed and we have been unable to find any part of the record showing harm to the appellant.4 ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Even though the State was seeking the death penalty, the jurors were properly excused on the State's motion for cause under the provisions of Article 35.16. V.A.C.C.P. Huffman v. State, 450 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.