Zillender v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 179 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Montgomery v. State (1991), Marin v. State (1993)
4 federal appellate · 175 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 Vlandis v. Kline · Scamardo v. State · Standley v. State · Bouchillon v. State · Nichols 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 179 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... [A] number of exceptions to the general rule that a party cannot complain on appeal to the overruling of a general objection or an imprecise specific objection have been created ... Thus, where the correct ground of exclusion was obvious to the judge and opposing counsel, no waiver results from a general or imprecise objection.” (Emphasis added).”
13 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Weatherford v. State · May v. State“In separate grounds of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment and his motion to require the State to elect on which count he was to be tried. The motion to quash complained that by trying the offenses jointly, appellant could not properly prepare his defense because the offenses occurred on different dates, under different circumstances, with different accomplices. The motion further alleged that appellant would be prejudiced because a jury would imply that he was a “career robbery” when in fact he had never been convicted of a felony before. The motion to elect requested the trial court to require the State to elect which offense it would try first so that appellant could prepare his defense accordingly.... When a request is made to sever, the trial court must grant the request, and failure to do so results in reversible error.... In the instant case, the motions filed by appellant timely apprised the trial court that the appellant did not desire to have the offenses joined in a common trial. We find that the motions clearly amounted to a request for severance under § 3.04, supra, and that the court erred in failing to grant the request.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rice v. State“(1) The motion to revoke is filed within the term of probation; (2) A warrant or capias issues within the probationary term or period; (3) The State diligently attempts to prosecute the motion to revoke, including the apprehension of appellant; (4) The alleged violation of probation occurred prior to the expiration of the probationary period; and (5) The trial court holds a revocation hearing without undue delay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hardman 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.