Wilder v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Royster v. State (1981), Vanderbilt v. State (1981)
3 federal appellate · 67 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In his first ground of error, Armour alleges that the evidence was insufficient under Article 37.071, V.A.C.C.P., to show he either caused the death of the deceased or committed the act deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that death would result because he did not actually kill the deceased."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. English v. State · Meanes v. State““The statements introduced below were relevant to the jury’s determination of all three questions under Article 37.071, supra. They shed light on both deliberateness and appellants’ future criminal tendencies.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Meanes v. State · Sanne v. State“"In upholding the constitutionality of the Texas death penalty procedures, the United States Supreme Court noted: "`Texas law requires that if a defendant has been convicted of a capital offense, the trial court must conduct a separate sentencing proceeding before the same jury that tried the issue of guilt. Any relevant evidence may be introduced at this proceeding .... The Texas capital-sentencing procedure guides and focuses the jury's objective consideration of the particularized circumstances of the individual offense and the individual offender before it can impose a sentence of death .... What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine. Texas law clearly assures that all such evidence will be adduced.' [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. May 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.