Mays v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

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

1. “The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted that "this sort of summary, in the most general and cursory terms, without any of the meat of the actual evidence will not suffice to preserve error." Id. at 891 . In order to preserve the issue for appeal, the defendant was required to proffer, with some degree of specificity, the substantive evidence he intended to present, during the guilt phase, of the appellant's mental impairments and their impact on his mental state at the time of the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Rhoten v. State

2. “Under Rule 103(a)(2), Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which ... excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and [[Image here]] (2) .... the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer, or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Kevin Fahrni v. State

3. “must include a reasonably specific summary of the evidence offered and must state the relevance of the evidence unless the relevance is apparent, so that the court can determine whether the evidence is relevant and admissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Rhoten v. State