Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 846 S.W.2d 310 - Rios v. State

Rios v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2018

20 state decisions

100199220002010decided

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 · Penry v. Lynaugh · Boyde v. California · Brasfield v. State · Hai Hai Vuong 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a continuous and uninterrupted chain of conduct occurring over a very short period of time ... in a rapid sequence of unbroken events.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Without more explanation, an instruction that baldly tells the jury it may consider evidence to be mitigating that seems altogether irrelevant to the special issues, or relevant only in an aggravating sense, is likely in context of our scheme to confound rather than inform."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[W]hen you deliberate on the questions posed in the special issues, you are to consider mitigating circumstances, if any, supported by the evidence presented in both phases of the trial, whether presented by the state or the defendant. [[Image here]] If you find that there are mitigating circumstances in this case, you must decide how much weight they deserve, if any, and thereafter, give effect answering the issue under consideration. If you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating evidence, if any, that the appropriate punishment for the defendant, based on his background, character or the circumstances of this case, should be a life sentence rather than a death sentence, you are instructed to answer "no” to at least one of the special issues.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.