Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 848 SW2D 777 - Williams v. State

Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
March 2005
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Moreno v. State · Sharp v. State · Lewis v. Diethorn

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A]ppellant maintains that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to allege appellant violated a duty imposed upon him as a public servant. He contends that this deletion was fatal in that it was an element of the offense. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific ground if the specific ground is not apparent from the context. Tex. R.App.P. 52(a) (Vernon Supp.1992).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postcon-viction proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.