Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 573 SW2D 792 - Muniz v. State

Muniz v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Muniz v. State (1993), Hawkins v. State (1983)

2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

25019781980199020002010decided

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 Allen v. United States · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Burns v. State · Livingston v. State · Donald v. Dumont v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections

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

  1. “"After the cause is submitted to the jury, it may be discharged when it cannot agree and both parties consent to its discharge; or the court may in its discretion discharge it where it has been kept together for such time as to render it altogether improbable that it can agree."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(b) On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence [at the punishment phase], the court shall submit the following three issues to the jury: (1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result; (2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and (3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased. (c) The state must prove each issue submitted beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury shall return a special verdict of "yes" or "no” on each issue submitted.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The circumstances of the offense itself can sustain a ‘yes’ answer if they are severe enough, Burns v. State, 556 S.W.2d 270 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); ... Muniz v. State, 573 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), or can fail to support it if they are not and are unsupplemented by other evidence, Warren v. State, 562 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Muniz v. State, supra.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.