Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 754 SW2D 687 - Green v. State

Green v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2009

24 state decisions

150198819902000decided

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 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe · McIntire v. State · Romo v. State · Dugard v. State · Trevino 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The majority says the motion was “timely ... presented to the court.” What the majority does not make clear is that this statement is based only on an unsigned and unidentified handwritten notation on the last page of the said motion “Presented to Judge 10-15-85. No Date set on hearing.” Who made such notation is not shown by the record and it is not supported elsewhere in the record. This Court is not informed what “presentation” meant to the individual making the notation, be he or she a legal secretary, law clerk, “gofer,” attorney, clerk or whoever. Nor are the circumstances under which the motion was “presented” revealed. 32”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““As a matter of pleading and as a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing, keeping in mind that the purpose of the affidavit requirement is to limit the parameters of the hearing that is sought, we hold that an affidavit is sufficient if it demonstrates that reasonable grounds exist for believing that jury misconduct occurred.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] motion for new trial if filed may be filed prior to, or shall be filed within 30 days after, date sentence is imposed or suspended in open court.” 2 . Rule 31(c)(1) provides that”
    1 later decision 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.