Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 964 SW2D 639 - Mann v. State

Mann v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Ellison v. State (2002), Olivas v. State (2006)

44 state decisions

310199820002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Arizona v. Fulminante · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Cage v. Louisiana

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

  1. “And if you further find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in Smith County, Texas, the [appellant], did then and there commit said offense with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination who collaborated in carrying on said criminal activity; then you will find the [appellant], guilty of Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[WJhere an error in the jury charge on reasonable doubt or burden of proof is isolated to one portion thereof and the remainder of the jury charge contains language negating the erroneous portion thereof, the effect of the error is analyzed by employment of the standards set forth by this Court in Abdnor and Almanza ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[W]e hold Geesa [ v. State ] created an absolute systemic requirement that an instruction on reasonable doubt be submitted to the jury in all cases where the burden of proof requires the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the failure to submit such an instruction is automatic reversible error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.