Ortega v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Malik v. State (1997), Gollihar v. State (2001)
56 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 Burks v. United States · Greene v. Massey · Thomas v. State · Lugo-Lugo v. State · Burrell 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[0]nce the phrase is incorporated into the court’s instructions to the jury in such a way that the jury must find it before a verdict of guilt is authorized, ... it must be proved, or the verdict will be deemed “contrary to the law and evidence.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Castro v. State · Gollihar v. State“Now bearing in mind the foregoing instructions, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Violet Yates, on or about the 23rd day of April, A.D. 1987, in the County of Dallas, and State of Texas, as alleged in the Information, did unlawfully did [sic] then and there knowingly and intentionally promote six or more obscene devices, namely dildos [sic], by exhibiting and advertising said devices, knowing the content and character of the said devices, you will find the defendant guilty of the offense of obscenity and so say by your verdict, and you will make no finding in this verdict as to punishment. ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pesina v. State · Yates v. State“`We fail to see how a description of the property obtained by the defendant is essential to giving him notice of the crime charged.' Whether this statement by the court of appeals is correct depends wholly upon what was alleged in the indictment; if the indictment alleged appellant actually `obtained' property, then Article 21.09, V.A.C.C.P. requires identification of that property by `name, kind, number and ownership,' if known, but if the indictment merely alleged the accompanying mental state required by the relevant proscription the `intent' to obtain propertythen the information sought by appellant is not essential to notifying him of what the State claims were his culpable `acts' or `omissions.' We accordingly turn to the indictment under which appellant was prosecuted;... Since it was alleged that appellant did an act accompanied by an `intent to obtain property' and not that he in fact did `obtain property,' the trial court correctly overruled his exception to the indictment on the ground discussed. [Emphasis added] [footnotes omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. DeVaughn 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.