Cox v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2002
15 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 Martin v. State · Hill v. Foster · Escobar v. State · Grant v. State · 33 Tex. Civ. App. 333 - Hicks v. Pogue
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. .. we will therefore refrain from disturbing on appeal a jury or trial court determination that the names in question are idem sonans unless evidence shows that the names are patently incapable of being sounded the same or that the accused was misled to his prejudice.... “. .. Questions involving the rule of idem sonans must be raised in the first instance at trial. If the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, it will be treated as having been waived and will present nothing for review.” Id. at 607 and 608. (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Flanagan v. State“If the names may be sounded alike without doing violence to the power of the letters found in the variant orthography, or if the name as stated be idem sonans with the true name, the variance and misspelling is immaterial.”
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.