Wawrykow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

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

1. “... [T]he court of criminal appeals is simply playing lip service to its opinions in Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Crim. App.1992) and Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). Either the courts of appeals are the final arbiters of fact questions or they are not; Arcila and Meraz say they are; Criner erodes that position.... Under the majority opinion in Criner , when the court of criminal appeals agrees with the court of appeals, [the courts of appeals are the final arbiters of fact questions]; when the court of criminal appeals disagrees with the lower court, [the courts of appeals are not].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Mireles v. State

2. “Indeed, juries are free to use their common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and experience gained in the ordinary affairs of life when giving affect to the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 655 So. 2d 881 - Murrell v. State

3. “in light of all the direct and circumstantial evidence presented at trial, [a] rational factfinder could have inferred that the police officer sustained `bodily injury,' as alleged in the indictment and the jury's instruction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 655 So. 2d 881 - Murrell v. State