Webb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably McFarland v. State (1996), Narvaiz v. State (1992)
111 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 Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of the confrontation; and (5) the lapse of time between the alleged act and the time of the confrontation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ford v. State · Loserth v. State“[I]f the totality of the circumstances reveals no substantial likelihood of mis-identification despite a suggestive pretrial procedure, subsequent identification testimony will be deemed “reliable,” “reliability [being] the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Loserth v. State · Wilson v. State“Of course, application of the law of parties at the guilt phase means it is possible for a non-triggerman, such as [the defendant], to be convicted of a capital offense. However, a capital defendant will be assessed the death penalty only if the jury answers the special issues of Art. 37.071(b) in the affirmative. Special issue number one requires the jury to determine "whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result.” Because the law of parties may not be applied in answering this issue, an affirmative verdict is possible only when the jury finds that the defendant’s own conduct satisfies both parts of special issue number one. ’ . ■”
2 later decisions 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.