Escamilla v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Aliff v. State (1982), Ferguson v. State (1978)
27 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 Schmerber v. State of California · Rochin v. People of California · Breithaupt v. Abram · Olson v. State · Kolb 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`But if the compulsory administration of a blood test does not implicate the Fifth Amendment, it plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment ... It could not reasonably be argued ... that the administration of the blood test in this case was free of the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Such testing procedures plainly constitute searches of "persons," and depend antecedently upon seizures of "persons," within the meaning of that Amendment.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Aliff v. State · Pesina v. State“1. The taking of blood from a live human being is a search and seizure within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution. 2. Because blood was not one of the items listed under Art. 18.02, a search warrant could not issue to seize blood from a live human being. 3.It is not unlawful for a live human being to possess blood.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pesina v. State · Gentry v. State““[cjonsent to search must be shown to be positive and unequivocal and the burden is upon the State to show by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was freely and voluntarily given. (Citation). This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. (Citations).” Escamilla, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith 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.