Green v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2018
22 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Batson v. Kentucky · Brewster v. Derwinski · Almanza v. State · Patterson v. Illinois
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[T]hat [the juror] was ultimately “rehabilitated” by the defense did not mean the State had to accept her ambivalent views. See Vargas v. State, 838 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). The reason behind peremptory strikes does not have to rise to the level of a challenge for cause to be considered legitimately race-neutral.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Shaw v. State · Benjamin v. State“• “[T]he defendant ... may earn time off the period of incarceration imposed through the award of good conduct time.” • “It is also possible that the length of time for which the defendant will be imprisoned might be reduced by the award of parole.” • This defendant “will not become eligible for parole until the actual time served equals one-half of the sentence imposed or 30 years, whichever is less, without consideration of any good conduct time he may earn .... Eligibility for parole does not guarantee that parole will be granted.” • “It cannot accurately be predicted how the parole law and good conduct time might be applied to this defendant (3)27, because the application of these laws will depend on decisions made by prison and parole authorities.” • “You may consider the existence of the parole law and good conduct time. However, you are not to consider the extent to which good conduct time may be awarded to or forfeited by this particular defendant. You are not to consider the manner in which the parole law may be applied to this particular defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Parker v. State“required a court to advise [the defendant] of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation before he could waive his right to counsel.” Green v. State, 839 S.W.2d 935, 941 (Tex.App.— Waco 1992, pet. ref'd). Indeed, the Green opinion is the only one our research has revealed that mentions”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Finstad
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.