Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 Tex. 463 - State v. Oakley

State v. Oakley’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
8
states following
April 1986
most recently cited

115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently April 1986 · most notably Gomez Leon v. State (1968), Lewis v. Southmore Savings Association (1972)

115 state decisions

690196219701980decided

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 State v. Carpenter · City of Austin v. Cannizzo · Nardis Sportswear v. Simmons · 68 Tex. Crim. 295 - Burford v. State · Texas Co. v. Lee

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

  1. “[T]he real question, however, is whether such testimony, which is inadmissible to prove the facts of such sales as evidence of the value of the property condemned, is likewise inadmissible in another capacity, that is, to show a basis of the opinion value stated by the expert witness and in which capacity the testimony is not hearsay in the true sense. The better reasoned view, in our opinion, is that the testimony is proper in such latter capacity, where, as in the case at bar, the testimony is given by a professionally qualified appraiser whose qualifications, and the comparability of the sales to which he testifies, are not challenged. (Emphasis added).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The question before us is narrowed to that of the admissibility of the testimony of the expert witness concerning sales of which he did not have personal knowledge, and which was offered for the limited purpose we have noted, since neither the qualifications of the expert witness nor the comparability of the sales to which he testified are challenged.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.