Irby v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
21 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))
Relationships
Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Allen v. United States · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Douglas v. Alabama
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Green] may have felt that the police would suspect him of the burglary both because he had a prior burglary adjudication and because the emptied safe was found on his family’s property. Based upon these particular facts, [Green] had a possible motive to divert suspicion from himself to another[, such as Davis]. Further, the police might also have brought undue pressure upon [Green] to make an identification of someone—anyone—because he was in “a vulnerable relationship” by virtue of being on probation for burglary, a fact that the investigating officers may also have known and used in questioning him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we agree with the trial judge and court of appeals that appellant failed to make a logical connection between W.P.’s testimony concerning his sexual encounters with appellant and his entirely separate probationary status. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding this impeachment evidence because it was irrelevant.”); Hammons v. State, 239 S.W.3d 798, 805 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State“In sum, Davis v. Alaska is not a blunderbuss that decimates all other evi-dentiary statutes, rules, and relevance requirements, in matters of witness impeachment. It is a rapier that targets only a specific mode of impeachment— bias and motive—when the cross-examiner can show a logical connection between the evidence suggesting bias or motive and the witness’s testimony.”
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.