Ferguson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Livingston v. State (1987), Amores v. State (1991)
2 federal appellate · 63 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 Terry v. Ohio · Chapman v. State of California · Adams v. Williams · Bumper v. North Carolina · Harrington v. California
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The taking of a defendant’s blood is a search and seizure under Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution. Escamilla v. State, 556 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Smith v. State, 557 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). If the defendant is in custody, either a warrant must be obtained or the defendant must consent to the taking of his blood. Smith v. State, supra. In any case in which consent is in issue, the burden is upon the State to show the consent was freely and voluntarily given, [citing authorities]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gentry v. State · Pesina v. State“1) An accomplice witness is one who has participated with another before, during or after commission of a crime. 2) Whether an individual is an accomplice depends on whether the individual, acting with intent to promote or assist in the commission of the crime, solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid in commission of the offense. 3) The test to determine whether a witness is an accomplice is whether a prosecution will lie against him under the indictment by which the accused was charged. 4) Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the court should charge the jury on whether the witness was an accomplice as a matter of fact. 5) A witness is not an accomplice solely by virtue of presence at the scene of the crime or merely for failing to disclose the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ross v. State“In selecting the jury from the persons summoned, the names of such persons shall be called in the order in which they appear upon the list furnished the defendant. Each juror shall be tried and passed upon separately. A person who has been summoned, but who is not present, may, upon his appearance before the jury is completed, be tried as to his qualifications and impaneled as a juror, unless challenged, but no cause shall be unreasonably delayed on account of such absence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goff 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.