Mayo v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2018
14 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 Cain v. State · Cantu v. State · Shelby v. State · Gaona v. State · Mendoza v. Varon
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a venireperson who does not live in the county is subject to challenge”); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 35.16(a)(1); Tex. Gov’t Code § 62.102. A juror's failure to reside in the county of the district court is not an absolute disqualification. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 35.16(a), 35.19. . The court of appeals reached this result even though it believed that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Perez
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.