Angel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Armendariz v. State (2003), Boyle v. State (1991)
52 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 Terry v. Ohio · Rakas v. Illinois · Michigan v. Long · Rawlings v. Kentucky · Steagald v. United States
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our State constitution limits this Court’s discretionary appellate power to review ‘a decision of a Court of Appeals in a criminal case as provided by law.’ Tex.Const. art. Y, § 5; see also Tex. R.App.Proe. 202(a). Our own rules of procedure further limit our review to those particular grounds raised in the petition and granted by this Court. Tex. R.App.Proc. 202(d)(4); see McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499 , 500 n. 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) (discretionary review strictly limited to ground raised and granted in the petition); Eisenhauer v. State, 678 S.W.2d 947, 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J. dissenting) (‘Our grant of review was no broader than the ground present ed....’) By doing so, we have narrowed our appellate focus to a particular issue, thus avoiding wholesale review of an entire case. See, e.g., McCambridge, supra at 501 n. 1 (issue of voluntariness of consent granted for review). Given these constitutional and procedural restrictions upon our review power, ‘our discretionary review is limited to those points of error decided by the Court of Appeals, included in petitions for [discretionary] review is limited to those points of error decided by the courts of appeals, included in petitions for discretionary review and granted as grounds for review.’ ” Angel v. State, 740 S.W.2d at 729-730 . (opinion per Campbell, J.) (emphasis added; brackets in original).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“`[a]ny peace officer is authorized to arrest without warrant any person found committing a violation of any provision of [the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways],'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“statutes which confer upon a peace officer the authority to act may not necessarily define the geographic scope of that authority,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.