Stein v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Bowden v. State (1982), Brooks v. State (1982)
54 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 172 Tex. Crim. 7 - Gaskin v. State · Nicholas v. State · Frison v. State · Seefurth v. State · Palmer 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.
““No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case. “In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brooks v. State · Jordan v. State“"Under the evidence, a charge on principals was not required, since the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that appellant unlawfully possessed the marihuana. [footnote omitted.] "In light of the evidence of appellant's personal possession and the court's instructions, the inclusion of the abstract statement of the law of principals was harmless error." at pg. 934.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Govan v. State“Under the evidence, a charge on principals was not required, since the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that appellant unlawfully possessed the marihuana. [footnote omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Govan 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.