Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 SW3D 554 - Hajjar v. State

Hajjar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Estes v. Texas · Montgomery v. State · Thompson v. State · Santellan 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “• how compellingly the extraneous offense evidence serves to make a fact of consequence more or less probable—a factor which is related to the strength of the evidence presented by the proponent to show the defendant in fact committed the extraneous offense; • the potential the other offense evidence has to impress the jury “in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way”; • the time the proponent will need to develop the evidence, during which the jury will be distracted from consideration of the indicted offense; and • the force of the proponent’s need for this evidence to prove a fact of consequence, ie., does the proponent have other probative evidence available to him to help establish this fact, and is this fact related to an issue in dispute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “By failing to object on this theory at trial, appellant has preserved nothing for our review.”
    1 later decision 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.