Guzman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Granviel v. State (1976), Myre v. State (1977)
52 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 Seefurth v. State · Green v. State · Sierra v. State · Cobb v. State · Brown 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such a procedure serves the salutary purpose in preventing the prosecution from being “sandbagged” and in preventing unnecessary reversals. Cf. Seefurth v. State, 422 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Crim.App.1967). In fact, to hold otherwise would be to place an intolerable burden on the prosecution offices to hire a battery of attorneys to comb each record after its completion in order to anticipate possible grounds of error that might be raised by the defendant. The administration of justice is not a game where the parties seek to maneuver each other into unwitting mistakes. Accordingly, we find the record properly before us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simmons v. State“There was no objection, no hearing, nor [sic] findings or adjudications to become final as provided in article 40.09(7). The controversy arose because of a supplemental or subsequent approval of the record once it had already been approved by the court without objection from either party. The question succinctly put is whether the State waived the right to have the designated matters included in the record by failure to object within the prescribed fifteen day period after notice of completion of the record was mailed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simmons v. State“Both article 40.09, sec. 4 and see. 7, clearly indicate the legislative intent that the trial judge be afforded limited discretion in these regards so that the statement of facts and the record shall “speak the truth.” Furthermore, we note that the case was still within the jurisdiction of the trial court until thirty days after filing of the State’s brief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simmons 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.