Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 550 SW2D 36 - Ransonette v. State

Ransonette v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
3
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Hankins v. State (1983), Villarreal v. State (1978)

81 state decisions

39019761980199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Moore v. Illinois · Webb v. State · Means 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A charge on circumstantial evidence is required only where the evidence of the main fact essential to guilt is purely and entirely circumstantial. See e. g. Wilson v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 59 , 225 S.W.2d 173 (1949). A charge on circumstantial evidence is necessary only when the State’s case depends entirely upon circumstances for conviction. See e. g. Nailing v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 161 , 211 S.W.2d 757 (1948); Wells v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 412 , 115 S.W.2d 658 (1938) . . . See 31 Tex.Jur.2d 682-683, Instructions, Sec. 123”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]here are situations in which evidence is obviously of such substantial value to the defense that elementary fairness requires it to be disclosed even without a specific request [from a defendant].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The standard to be applied in cases of suppression or nondisclosure of evidence by the State is whether the testimony may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial.” Ransonette, supra at 39 .”
    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.