Moosavi v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 state decisions

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

1. “Appellate courts review and correct trial court error. To enable them to do this the error must be properly preserved during trial so that a complete record of the error can be reviewed on appeal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. RUIZ-ANGELES v. State · Ruiz-Angeles v. State

2. ““The vast majority of cases dealing with Art. 40.09, Sec. 6(d)(1) impose no formal requirements on offers of proof. For example, in Passmore v. State, 617 S.W.2d 682 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), the defendant failed to make a bill of exception or offer of proof. This Court held that no error was preserved because ‘[a]ppellant did not ... proffer proof to show what Chambers’ testimony would have been.’ Passmore, supra, at 685 . Nowhere in Passmore, supra, is it required that offers of proof be in question and answer form. “Similarly, in Toler v. State, 546 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), the defendant failed to make a bill of exception or offer of proof ‘to show what the testimony would have been if she had been permitted to elicit such answers.’ Toler, supra, at 295 . The Court held no error was preserved but did not require that an offer of proof be in question and answer form. See also Riles v. State, 595 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Chambers v. State, 568 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. Cr.App.1978); Ross v. State, 523 S.W.2d 402 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Stein v. State, 514 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Garcia v. State, 513 S.W.2d 82 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Davison v. State, 510 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilford v. State