McBee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 368 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 376 later decisions — most recently December 2003 · most notably State v. Grace (1973), Bolin v. State (1966)
4 federal appellate · 368 state decisions
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 Anderson v. State · Holt v. State · Turner v. State · White v. State · Cooper 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 376 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In reviewing the' record on appeal from a conviction, it is the law of this State ‘that the credibility of the witnesses and the conflicts in their testimony have been settled by the verdict of the jury which has been approved by the trial court.’ ” Holt v. State, 210 Tenn. 188 , 357 S.W.2d 57 (1962).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Grace · Alvey v. State“It is well settled in this State that a conviction in a criminal case will not be reversed on the facts unless it is shown that the evidence preponderates against the verdict and in favor of the innocence of the accused. * * * It is also well-settled in this State that the verdict of the jury, approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflict in favor of the theory of the State. Such verdict also removes the presumption of innocence of the accused and raises a presumption of his guilt and puts upon him, here, the burden of showing that the evidence preponderates against the verdict and in favor of his innocence. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The reason for the rule requiring the names of witnesses to appear on the indictment is to make known to the defendant the names of such witnesses who will be called to testify so that the defendant will not be surprised and handicapped in the preparation of his case. Defendant does not on this appeal claim surprise or prejudice, but relies upon technical noncompliance with the statute. We find this contention to be without merit.””
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.