Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 690 SW2D 597 - Ratliff v. State

Ratliff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Whitsey v. State (1990), Allridge v. State (1988)

42 state decisions

2101985199020002010decided

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 McManus v. State · De La Rosa v. State · Mathis v. State · 167 Tex. Crim. 627 - Mathis v. State · Abron 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The right to be represented by counsel, guaranteed by Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, encompasses the right of counsel to question the members of the jury panel in order to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges, [citations omitted.] The trial court, in its sound discretion, can and should control the voir dire examination of the venire; however, the permissible areas of questioning the panel in order to exercise peremptory challenges are broad and cannot be unnecessarily limited, [citation omitted.] “... When the contention is that the trial court erred in denying a challenge for cause, no reversible error is shown unless the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges and one or more objectionable juror sat on the jury. However, when the question is asked for the purpose of exercising peremptory challenges, the test for injury is entirely different. If the question is proper, an answer denied prevents intelligent use of the peremptory challenge and harm is shown, [citation omitted.]””
    3 later decisions 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.