Lanis Ray COBB, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee

1973-12-19 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · United States

read the judgment

5What it rests on

5Relied 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.

19742 judgments19752 judgments19781 judgments

5 judgments have relied on it, across 1974–1978

first 1974 · last 1978 · busiest 1974 (2 judgments)

1978-09-27Henry HINES, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 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 1974-01-16Robert Earl RANSOM, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1974-01-16Ronald Wayne MITCHELL and Willie Earl Ratliff, Appellants, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

What it rests on

1972-09-25Ervin Herman ALBRECHT, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1972-06-28Francisco Hernandez HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1972-06-21Charles Edward GRAYSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1972-06-07Guy FORD, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1969-12-10Francis OWENS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

5 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

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.