Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 Tex. Crim. 189 - Woolen v. State

68 Tex. Crim. 189 - Woolen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
August 1997
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 1997

15 state decisions

80191219201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

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

  1. “Wherever the Legislature has provided the method and means by which a jury may or must be selected, the judiciary is not authorized because of some idea they may entertain of expediency or saving of cost or expense, to abrogate and set aside the plain provisions of statutory enactment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The district court of each county shall at each term appoint”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the jury commissioners shall select, etc.”
    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.