Castillo v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2023
9 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Illinois v. Gates · Rakas v. Illinois · Almanza v. State · United States v. Payner
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sec. 1(3) “Intercept” means the aural acquisition of the contents of a wire or oral communication through the use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device. [[Image here]] Sec. 3(a) The presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals ... shall appoint one district judge from each of the administrative judicial districts 3 of this state to serve ... as the judge of competent jurisdiction within that administrative judicial district.... (b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section, only the judge of competent jurisdiction for the administrative judicial district in which the proposed interception will be made may act on an application for authorization to intercept wire or oral communications. (c) If the judge of competent jurisdiction for an administrative judicial district is absent or unable to serve or if exigent circumstances exist, the application may be made to the judge of competent jurisdiction in an adjacent administrative judicial district_”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Castillo v. State“The [original] application stated the location of the telephones in Ellis County were small communities; that 30 officers would be required to maintain them; that there was danger of compromise of the investigation if monitoring occurred in Ellis County; and that there was close association between two of the parties to be monitored and an Ellis County police officer, and there was information concerning “pay off” of the Sheriff. Since the exigent circumstances existed, the prosecutors were authorized under Article 18.20(3)c to apply to the Third Judicial District for the order[s].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Castillo v. State
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.