John SEWELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee

1982-03-10 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · United States

read the judgment

1What it rests on

3Relied 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.

19851 judgments19872 judgments

3 judgments have relied on it, across 1985–1987

first 1985 · last 1987 · busiest 1987 (2 judgments)

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 1985-06-19Jeffrey D. PLANTE, Appellant, 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

10 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.