Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 527 SW2D 549 - Daniels v. State

Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
September 1984
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Campbell v. State · Rummel v. State · 144 Tex. Crim. 509 - Marks v. State · 91 Tex. Crim. 234 - Thompson v. State · 118 Tex. Crim. 112 - Sulak 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"[T]he rule is well established that the submission of an incorrect charge on punishment does not require reversal of the judgment unless harm or prejudice is shown."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The court's instructions in Manning v. State, ([ 46 Tex.Cr.R. 326 ] 81 S.W. 957 ) and Grider v. State, ([ 82 Tex.Cr.R. 124 ] 198 S.W. 579 ) that misdirected the jurors on the range of punishment that could be assessed were more harmful to those defendants than the complained of instructions are to appellant in this case. In this case, at the time of trial, it was to the appellant's advantage not to object to the instructions that failed to tell the jurors they could assess a fine in addition to imprisonment. She, having accepted this benefit, having failed to object to the court's charge and having failed to request a proper charge—articles 36.14 and 36.15, V.A.C.C.P.—waived her objection and cannot now for the first time on appeal in the motion for rehearing successfully complain of the court's erroneous charge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ . . and assess his punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for a period of 10 years, and/or a fine of $5,000.00; we further find that the defendant has never been convicted of a felony in this State or any other State, and has never heretofore been given a probated sentence, and we recommend that the sentence given above in this case be probated by the Court, /s/ Foreman””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.