Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 633 SW2D 508 - Garza v. State

Garza v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Livingston v. State (1987), Hudson v. State (1984)

55 state decisions

24019821990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Wade · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Jackson v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite

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

  1. “First of all by viewing the alleged perpetrator of the offense immediately after the commission of the offense, the witness is allowed to test his recollection while his memory is still fresh and accurate. Additionally the quick confirmation or denial of identification expedites the release of innocent suspects. Thus the innocent suspect need not be transported to jail and detained until a lineup can be constructed. Furthermore the police would be able to release the innocent suspect and continue their search for the criminal while he is still within the area and before the criminal can substantially alter his looks and dispose of evidence of the crime. Finally, any possible prejudice resulting from such a confrontation can be exposed by rigorous cross-examination of the witness.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. (2) The witness’s degree of attention. (3) The accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal. (4) The level of certainty demonstrated at the trial confrontation. (5) The time between the crime and the confrontation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We are content to rely upon the good sense and judgment of American juries, for evidence with some element of untrustworthiness is customary grist for the jury’s mill. Juries are not so susceptible that they cannot measure intelligently the weight of identification testimony that has some questionable feature.”
    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.