Sanders v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably Rose v. State (1988), Smith v. State (1995)
34 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 Carrillo v. State · Heredia v. State · McCartney v. State · State Ex Rel. Smith v. Blackwell · Moore 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] power which has been granted to one department of government may be exercised only by that branch to the exclusion of the others ... and any attempt by one department of government to interfere with the powers of another is null and void. Ex parte Giles, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 774 [1973]. Smith v. Blackwell, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 97 [1973]. (Emphasis in original).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Tucker · Munroe v. State““New trials, in cases of felony, shall be granted the defendant for the following causes, and for no other: * sfc s(c sf: (8) Where, from the misconduct of the jury, the court is of the opinion that the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial. It shall be competent to prove such misconduct by the voluntary affidavit of a juror; and the verdict may, in like manner, be sustained by such affidavit .... ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Collins v. State · Munroe v. State““For example, the mere mention of the parole law would not be such misconduct as would require a new trial. Likewise, a discussion of the parole law, followed by instructions that it should not be discussed, coming from the court in response to a message from the jury or coming from a juror, after which it is not further discussed, would not be such misconduct as to require a new trial.... What does constitute such degree of misconduct as to deny the defendant a fair and impartial trial must be determined upon the facts of the individual case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Munroe v. State · Monroe 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.