Esquivel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 151 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2008 · most notably Culberson v. Mississippi (1980), Hawkins v. State (1983)
2 federal appellate · 151 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Moore v. State · Burns v. State · Myre v. State · Taylor 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally, the results of an out-of-court experiment are admissible in the discretion of the trial court if the experiment was made under similar conditions to the event to which the results of the experiment relate. The fact that the experiment was not made under exactly the same condition goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. See, 23 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 400 (1961); McCormick and Ray, Texas Evidence, Sec. 1461.5 (Supp. 1978).” (Emphasis added) [ 595 S.W.2d 516, at 529 ]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Aliff v. State · Ginther v. State“‘2. That he has been convicted of theft or any felony: ‘3. That he is under indictment or other legal accusation for theft or any felony; ‘4. That he is insane or has such defect in the organs of feeling or hearing, or such bodily or mental defect or disease as to render him unfit for jury service, or that he is legally blind and either the court or the state in its discretion or the defendant or the prospective juror in his discretion is not satisfied that he is fit for jury service in that particular case.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Frame v. State · Martinez v. State“"... it was made abundantly clear in Witherspoon that the decision reached therein had no bearing on the right of the prosecution to challenge for cause any prospective juror who stated that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to the evidence which might be developed at the trial or that his attitude toward the death penalty would prevent him from making an impartial decision as to the defendant's guilt."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hawkins v. State · Bass 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.