Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 SW2D 908 - Mulder v. State

Mulder v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Marquez v. State (1987), Tucker v. State (1988)

49 state decisions

2101986199020002010decided

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 Estelle v. Gamble · United States v. Edwards · Hankins v. State · McManus v. State · Marini 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(c) A search warrant may not be issued pursuant to Subdivision (10) of Article 18.02 of this code unless the sworn affidavit required by Subsection (b) of this article sets forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause: (1) that a specific offense has been committed, (2) that the specifically described property or items that are to be searched for or seized constitute evidence of that offense or evidence that a particular person committed that offense, and (3) that the property or items constituting evidence to be searched for or seized are located at or on the particular person, place, or thing to be searched.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Irineo Montoya, ... and Juan Villavi-cencio, ... did then and there unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly cause the death of John E. Kilheffer, the deceased, by stabbing the deceased with a knife, which then and there in the manner of its use or intended use was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, and the said defendants were then and there in the course of committing and attempting to commit the offense of robbery of John E. Kilheffer, ...””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The record does not reflect that Claude raised a speedy trial claim in cause no. 22,843, and, as that cause is the case before us we find that no issue is presented because no motion to dismiss was made by Claude in the instant case.”
    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.