Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 SW3D 121 - Ramirez v. State

Ramirez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 185th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Arizona v. Fulminante · Illinois v. Allen

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

  1. “No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case. In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Here, the record reflects that appellant's counsel expressly stated he had no objection to excluding appellant from the courtroom. Where both the trial judge and appellant's counsel agree that appellant should be removed from the courtroom, we presume appellant's tone, volume, or demeanor must have been highly disruptive. ... As the trial court lacked reason to believe appellant's misbehavior would cease, appellant's expulsion was not constitutionally improper.”
    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.