Limuel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Denham v. State (1978), Flanagan v. State (1984)
59 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 Simmons v. United States · Clay v. State · McElroy v. State · Williams v. State · White 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(11) ‘Deadly weapon’ means: “(A) A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or “(B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Davidson v. State · Denham v. State“"In the instant case while there was no medical testimony as to the nature of the wounds, and while the knife taken from appellant's possession was not introduced into evidence, we conclude the evidence sufficient to show the knife used to be a deadly weapon.... The manner in which the knife was used and the wound inflicted were sufficient to bring the knife within the definition of the deadly weapon."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Denham v. State · Cruz v. State““Under the former Penal Code there was no statutory definition of deadly weapon. Mosley v. State, 545 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) (footnote # 3). The current Penal Code, as observed, does contain such a definition and broadens the above considerations to include ‘or its intended use.’ Further, it has been held that the wounds inflicted is also a factor that is considered in determining the character of the weapon. Reed v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 208 , 192 S.W.2d 890 (1946); Williams v. State, 477 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). This does not, however, mean that wounds must be inflicted before a knife can be determined to be a deadly weapon. See and cf. Richards v. State, supra [ 147 Tex.Cr.R. 118 , 178 S.W.2d 517 ].” 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Turner 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.