Cane v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2013
9 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 Ex Parte McWilliams · Johnson v. State · York v. State · Crain v. State · Zuckerman 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After researching Texas statutory and decisional law from 1857 forward, we have concluded that Article 36.19 [V.A.C.C.P.] actually separately contains the standards for both fundamental error and ordinary reversible error. If the error in the charge was the subject of a timely objection in the trial court, then reversal is required if the error is `calculated to injure the rights of defendant,' which means no more than that there must be some harm to the accused from the error. In other words, an error which has been properly preserved by objection will call for reversal as long as the error is not harmless. "On the other hand, if no proper objection was made at trial and the accused must claim that the error was `fundamental,' he will obtain a reversal only if the error is so egregious and created such harm that he `has not had a fair and impartial trial'in short, `egregious harm.' "In both situations the actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Teague v. State“We find no logic in the proposition that such an instruction would constitute a comment on the weight of the evidence or invite the jury to speculate on matters out of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Teague v. State“(2) by definition and grading of offenses to give fair warning of what is prohibited and of the consequences of violation;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Teague 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.