Contract

the citation graph

Clyde WILLIAMS, Jr. & David Lee Smith, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee

1983-12-21 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · United States

read the judgment

12What it rests on

13Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19855 judgments19861 judgments19872 judgments19883 judgments19891 judgments19911 judgments

13 judgments have relied on it, across 1985–1991

first 1985 · last 1991 · busiest 1985 (5 judgments)

1991-06-19Patrick Logan MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×4 1989-01-24Antonio PACHECO, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeTexas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1988-10-05Patrick Logan MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeTexas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1988-09-14Denton Alan CRANK, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1988-01-14John Arthur RODDA, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Appeals of Texas 1987-10-07LaStarza MANNIE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeTexas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)×2 1987-05-20Herman Ray CANTRELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1986-04-23Bobby TEMPLIN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1985-10-23Donald J. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1985-10-09Bobby James MOORE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1985-07-10Danny Marshall MORGAN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1985-06-19Jeffrey D. PLANTE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1985-04-24Lester BOUTWELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×3

What it rests on

1983-03-30Robert Louis ELKINS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1982-12-15Leroy BATES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1980-09-24Carlos Rene RUBIO, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×3 1979-10-10James Alvin MURPHY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1979-01-03Larry Lee CHRISTIANSEN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1978-12-13Ray Leroy MULCHAHEY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1978-11-01Virgil John ETCHIESON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1978-09-27Henry HINES, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1978-06-21Jessie Ray JONES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1975-12-19John T. CAMERON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1975-03-12Charles Anthony REDD, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1972-09-25Ervin Herman ALBRECHT, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.