Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 582 SW2D 800 - Bell v. State

Bell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably Woods v. Texas (1981), Long v. State (1991)

44 state decisions

30019791980199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Jackson v. Denno · Schmerber v. State of California · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia

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

  1. ““Under the holding of Schmerber v. California, supra, this objection was properly overruled. In White v. State, 521 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), this Court reversed a conviction on the grounds of an illegal search and seizure of the defendant’s car. The decision of this Court was ‘reversed’ by the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67 , 96 S.Ct. 304 , 46 L.Ed.2d 209 (1975). In White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), on remand from the United States Supreme Court, it was urged that the conviction could still be held invalid under the provisions of Art. I, Sec. 9, of the Texas Constitution. In Part III of the opinion, this Court stated: “ ‘We do not reach this question. The appellant’s sole reliance in the trial court was on cases construing the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.... At no time during the trial of this case did the appellant urge that Article I, Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution supported his motion to suppress. “ ‘It is fundamental that the grounds for reversal urged on appeal must comport with the objections made at trial, [citing authorities]’ ””
    1 later decision 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.