Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 547 SW2D 18 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Sonnier v. State (1996), Romo v. State (1978)

58 state decisions

28019771980199020002010decided

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 Perez 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"However, this confidential character [of jury deliberations] also requires that the members of the jury, before deliberations, receive proper instructions regarding the performance of their civic duty. * * * There should be but one controlling application of the law to the facts, and that application should come from the court. Its absence impairs the right to trial by jury and, therefore, by definition, is `calculated to injure the rights of defendant' (Art. 36.19, [V.A.C.C.P.]) to a trial by jury. It is not the function of the charge merely to avoid misleading or confusing the jury: it is the function of the charge to lead and to prevent confusion." Id. at 20 .”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Now if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in Harris County, Texas, Brenda Cantrell Vaughn hereafter styled the Defendant, acting alone or with another person as a party to the offense, as that term is hereinbefore defined, heretofore on or about the 15th day of July, 1991, did then and there unlawfully intentionally or knowingly threaten imminent bodily injury to Joseph Amos by using a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm, then you will find the Defendant guilty of aggravated assault, as charged in the indictment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “"Whenever it appears by the record in any criminal action upon appeal that any requirement of Article 36.14, 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18 [concerning the court's charge] has been disregarded, the judgment shall not be reversed unless the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure the rights of defendant, or unless it appears from the record that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial...."”
    4 later decisions 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.