Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 610 SW2D 471 - Taylor v. State

Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
January 2006
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably Robinson v. State (1987), Ex Parte Gibauitch (1985)

29 state decisions

270198119902000decided

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 Anders v. California · Chapman v. State of California · North Carolina v. Alford · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Schneble v. Florida

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

  1. “... where the record indicates that the defendant has received an admonishment with respect to punishment, although not a complete one, there is a prima facie showing of a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty. The burden then shifts to the defendant to show that he entered the plea without understanding the consequences of his action and thus was harmed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It was established there was an improper admonishment as to penalty, and ... there was a plea bargain, a plea bargain based upon the wrong range of punishment. Appellant alleged under oath he would not have entered the plea bargain if he had known the maximum penalty was only one-half of what he was told. * * * * * * “We conclude that applicant was not aware of the consequences of his plea, that he was harmed by the court’s admonishment, and further, under all the circumstances, the guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To state the rule generally, we hold that in a prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act for the manufacture, delivery, or possession of a substance not specifically named in a penalty group but which is otherwise described in a penalty group, ... such description is an essential element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment in order to state an offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.