Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 509 SW2D 851 - McClendon v. State

McClendon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Mendoza v. State (1977), Jackson v. State (2001)

26 state decisions

8019741980199020002010decided

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 Penix v. State · 153 Tex. Crim. 134 - Dillard v. State · Jones v. State · Crisp v. State · 126 Tex. Crim. 356 - Johnson 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In most instances where a prior felony conviction has been used for impeachment, it has been held remote if the time of one’s discharge from such conviction is more than ten years. See 62 Tex.Jur.2d, Witnesses, Section 340, page 381; Penix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 86 ; Livingston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 108 ; Haney v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 63 , 211 S.W.2d 215 . However, the often referred to ten-year rule of thumb is not always followed. Each case must rest upon its own circumstances. See Dillard v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 134 , 218 S.W.2d 476 . “If more than ten years have elapsed since the discharge date of a prior conviction and if the witness has not reformed, proof of such prior conviction may be shown for impeachment purposes.””
    2 later decisions 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.