Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 711 SW2D 631 - Wray v. State

Wray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
October 2006
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2006 · most notably Curry v. State (2000), Gollihar v. State (2001)

29 state decisions

180198619902000decided

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 Burks v. United States · Greene v. Massey · Burrell v. State · Weaver v. State · Franklin 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) If a variance exists between the allegations and the proof, it may render the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. Franklin v. State, 659 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Seiffert v. State, 501 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Unnecessary words or allegations in an indictment may be rejected as surplusage if they are not descriptive of that which is legally essential to the validity of the indictment. Windham v. State, 638 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). But where the unnecessary matter is descriptive of that which is legally essential to charge a crime, it must be proven as alleged even though needlessly stated. Weaver v. State, 551 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “by pointing said deadly weapon at Mary Ann Henderson”
    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.