Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 318 S.W.2d 113 - McKee v. State

McKee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
August 2000
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2000

21 state decisions

90195819601970198019902000decided

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 Sorrells v. United States · Slay v. Burnett Trust · Chisholm v. Bewley Mills · State v. Richards · 162 Tex. Crim. 624 - 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the statute directs, authorizes or commands an act to be done within a certain time, the absence of words restraining the doing thereof afterwards or stating the consequences of failure to act within the time specified, may be considered as a circumstance tending to support a directory construction. [[Image here]] It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that if the Legislature had intended that a claim established by judgment should be barred if not filed within thirty days as required by [section 5.07(a)], it would have expressly so stated.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In a discussion of forfeitures the text writer in 37 C.J.S. Forfeitures § 5e, p. 15 under Character of Procedure says, 'The character of the procedure for the enforcement of a forfeiture depends on the statute under which the forfeiture is sought to be enforced. Forfeiture proceedings may be either civil or criminal in nature, and may be in rem or in per-sonam. If they are under a statute such that if an indictment is presented the forfeiture can be included in the criminal case they are criminal in nature, although they may be civil in form; and where it must be gathered from the statute that the action is meant to be criminal in its nature it cannot be considered as civil. If, however, the proceeding does not involve the conviction of the wrongdoer for the offense charged the proceeding is of a civil nature.’ (Emphasis added.) Therefore, it follows that this is a civil statutory in rem forfeiture, even though we are dealing with a criminal statute.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It may well be seen that situations would arise in many instances where service could not be had on record lien holders within the 30-day period from the filing of the verified answer, thus making the 30-day requirement impossible for fulfillment.”
    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.