Walthall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Jones v. State (1996), United States v. Christine (1982)
2 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 Chapman v. State of California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Harrington v. California · Sedillo v. United States · Marron v. United States
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While appellant had requested that the trial proceedings be recorded, it was nevertheless incumbent on him to object if the bench conferences were not held within the hearing of the reporter or recorded by her. Appellant did not object during the trial, nor did he object to the record after being notified of its completion. See Art. 40.09, Sec. 7, V.A.C. C.P. Moreover, appellant has neither shown nor alleged that anything pertinent took place in the unrecorded bench conferences. Reversible error is not presented.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State · Phillips v. State“.. .3) all items of personal property commonly used in the commission of a criminal offense and in particular the offense of commercial exhibition of obscene material—; 4) all implements or instruments used in the commission of a crime.... Id. at 78 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Appellant’s final contention regarding the validity of the warrant is that the warrant fails to describe the persons to be arrested in sufficient detail. The warrant orders the arrest of ‘the person or persons commercially exhibiting the said motion picture film or possessing the same with the intent to distribute.’ It is not necessary to include the name of the offender in the search warrant. If his name is unknown, it is sufficient to describe him, and if his identity is also unknown, it is sufficient to aver that the premises are in control of ‘parties unknown to the affiants.’ See 51 Tex. Jur.2d, Searches and Seizures, Sec. 23, pp. 664-665; Rice v. State, 548 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Hernandez v. State, 437 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). The warrant in this case sufficiently describes the offender, and the description is limited to those persons in control of the film in question. Appellant’s contention is without merit. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lippert 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.