Senn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “Because we have held that proof of bigamy was not required in this case and because we have held that section 22.011(f) is not vague as applied to Senn, the trial court was not required to include an instruction on bigamy under section 25.01, nor was it required to instruct the jury that it could find in the affirmative on the special issue only if it found that Senn was currently married to another.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rodriguez v. State

2. “[a]fter arduous study, we are unable to reconcile footnote 9's articulation of the evidence the State is required to produce to trigger enhancement under section 22.011(f) -facts that would constitute bigamy-with the Arteaga opinion's articulation of the evidence the State is required to produce to trigger enhancement under section 22.011(f) -facts constituting bigamy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rodriguez v. State

3. “The particular facts and circumstances that inform-and limit-our ruling [that section 22.011(f) is not unconstitutional as applied] are that Estes is a married man convicted of sexually assaulting a child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rodriguez v. State