Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 SW2D 142 - Ray v. State

Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
October 2003
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2003

7 state decisions

40198319902000decided

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 Johnson v. State · Clark v. State · Basaldua v. State · Duncantell v. Texas · Duncantell v. State

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

  1. “If this Jury finds itself unable to arrive at an unanimous verdict, it would be necessary for the Court to declare a mistrial and discharge the Jury. The indictment will still be pending, and it is reasonable to assume that the case will be tried again before another Jury at some future time. Any such future Jury will be impaneled in the same way this Jury has been impaneled, and will likely hear the same evidence which has been presented to this Jury. The questions to be determined by that Jury will be the same questions confronting you and there is no reason to hope that the next Juiy will find these questions any easier to decide than you have found them. With this additional instruction, you are instructed to continue deliberations in an effort to arrive at a verdict that is acceptable to all members of the Jury, if you can do so without violation to your conscience.”
    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.