Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 599 SW2D 836 - Holifield v. State

Holifield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2003

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

90198019902000decided

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 Warren v. State · Boatright v. State · Gavia v. State · Perry v. State · Vital 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““But irrespective of its weight or of its probative value or cumulative character or the issue upon which it is offered .. . if the evidence was admissible and offered before the reading of the charge and prior to arguments, unless it appears its introduction would have impeded the trial or interfered with the due and orderly administration of justice, it will be reversible error to refuse the request to reopen for its receipt.” 523 S.W.2d at 664 .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The court shall allow testimony to be introduced at any time before the argument of a cause is concluded, if it ap pears that it is necessary to a due administration of justice.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The State argues in its brief that the trial had already lasted a week, and that to reopen the case would have resulted in at least a two day continuance “just so the State could reassemble its witnesses, if it could.” However, the State’s contention is not supported in the record by testimony that the rebuttal witnesses were actually unavailable. Although the State is entitled to offer evidence to qualify an informal bill of exceptions, it did not do so.”
    1 later decision 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.