Wall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably Cherb v. State (1971), Banks v. State (1974)
59 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 Thompson v. City of Louisville · 164 Tex. Crim. 448 - Washburn v. State · Nichols v. State · 95 Tex. Crim. 53 - McClure v. State · 90 Tex. Crim. 106 - Cox 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““First, a party introducing a witness cannot attack his or her testimony unless the witness has stated facts injurious to such party. Article 38.28, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Mims v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 180 , 261 S.W.2d 727 . It is not sufficient that the witness merely fails to testify as expected or to remember facts favorable to the party calling the witness. Crandall v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 229 , 340 S.W.2d 36 . * * * “Further, foreknowledge of a witness’s testimony precludes impeachment though such testimony is decidedly adverse on a vital issue. Perrett v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 94 , 170 S.W. 316 ; Hollingsworth v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 489 , 182 S.W. 465 ; Scott v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 20 S.W. 549 ; 62 Tex.Jur.2d, 339, Sec. 323.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ortega v. State · Perkins v. State““ . . . prior to the trial the appellant filed his motion to change venue drafted in compliance with Article 31.03, V.A.C. C.P., and supported by affidavits, (emphasis supplied) The motion was overruled. The motion was uncontroverted by the State either in the form of an affidavit or by the presentation of any evidence justifying the denial of motion, and there was not a waiver by appellant of a controverting affidavit. Under such circumstances, the appellant was entitled to have the venue changed and the Court erred in failing to grant the motion. Cox v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 106 , 234 S.W. 72 ; Ross v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 531 , 248 S.W. 685 ; Burleson v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 576 , 100 S.W.2d 1019 ; 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C.2d Ed. 356, Sec. 132.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Norwood v. State · Flores v. State““It has been the consistent holding of this Court that evidence of the results of a lie detector or polygraph test is not admissible on behalf of either the State or the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Romero v. State
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.