Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 815 S.W.2d 636 - Ramirez v. State

Ramirez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

91
cited by 91 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

86 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Green v. State (1996), Adanandus v. State (1993)

86 state decisions

530199120002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Penry v. Lynaugh · Jurek v. Texas · Kissinger v. Halperin · Albrecht 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “No limiting instruction was required in this cause because the evidence of sexual assault did not present an extraneous offense to the jury nor was the evidence admitted for any limited purpose. See and cf Wilkerson v. State, 736 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Tex.Cr.App.1987) (limiting instruction on an extraneous offense not required where extraneous offense is part of transaction which includes offense on trial); Ernster v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. 422 , 308 S.W.2d 33 (1957) (trial court reversibly erred in failing to give instruction limiting jury’s consideration of extraneous offense to purpose for which admitted). Moreover, the jury charge at guilt/innocence did not limit the issue of burglarious intent to appellant’s intent to commit theft as stated in his confession.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Circumstances of the offense which tend to prove the allegations of the indictment are not extraneous offenses. Ramirez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 636, 643 (Tex.Cr.App.1991)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An abuse of discretion arises only when the probative value of the photograph is small and its inflammatory potential great.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re KY

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.