Saenz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2016
20 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 Montgomery v. State · Meshell v. State · Chambers v. State · Bynum v. State · Juarez 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause we are a discretionary review court, and not, in this context, 'the appellate court,' [set out in former Tex.R.App. P. 81(b)(2)], we should not resolve the issue of harmfulness as a matter of first impression”); but see id. at 30-32 (Baird, J., concurring and dissenting) (arguing that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. McDonald 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.