Armstrong v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2002
8 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 172 Tex. Crim. 600 - Barton v. State · Payne v. State · 99 Tex. Crim. 388 - Hurd v. State · 88 Tex. Crim. 211 - Pyor v. State · 143 Tex. Crim. 641 - Strong 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where the instrument alleged to be forged is set out in the indictment according to its tenor, the writing offered in evidence must conform thereto with almost minute precision. Williams v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 545 , 301 S.W.2d 107 (1962); Barton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 600 , 361 S.W.2d 716 (1962); Pyor v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 211 , 225 S.W. 374 (1921). See also 3 Branch’s Penal Code, Sec. 1588 (2d ed. 1956). The strictest proof is required, and this is furnished only by an exact copy. Payne v. State, 391 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Morales v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 462 , 329 S.W.2d 283 (1959); Strong v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 641 , 160 S.W.2d 923 (1942); Hurd v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 388 , 269 S.W. 439 (1925).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walton v. State · McKellar 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.