Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 965 SW2D 3 - Umoja v. State

Umoja v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2017

20 state decisions

140199820002010decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Purkett v. Elem · O'NEAL v. McAninch · Clewis v. State · Harris 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Or, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 28th day of June, A.D.1997, in Bexar County, Texas, the defendant, Ti-motheo Rivera, did intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual, Gilbert Vasquez, by cutting or stabbing Gilbert Vasquez with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife, that in the manner of its use or intended use was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, thereby causing the death of Gilbert Vasquez; Or, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 28th day of June, A.D.1997, in Bexar County, Texas, the defendant, Ti-motheo Rivera, intending to cause serious bodily injury to Gilbert Vasquez, did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to wit: by cutting or stabbing Gilbert Vasquez with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife, that in the manner of its use or intended use was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, then you will find the defendant guilty of murder as charged in the indictment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “no other concurrent cause was ‘clearly sufficient’ to cause the victim’s death.”
    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.