Eckert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

cited by 58 later decisions

states following

January 2011

most recently cited

58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably Harris v. State (1989), Bignall v. State (1994)

58 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 Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · King v. Texas · Carrillo v. State · Edwards 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“(a) A change of venue may be granted in any felony or misdemeanor case punishable by confinement on the written motion of the defendant, supported by his own affidavit and the affidavit of at least two credible persons, residents from the county where the prosecution is instituted, for either of the following causes, the truth and sufficiency of which the court shall determine: (1) that there exists in the county where the prosecution is commenced so great a prejudice against him that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial. afe * >js $ sfc *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Hernandez v. State · Berghahn v. State
““New trials, ... shall be granted the defendant for the following causes, and for no other: “(7) Where the jury, after having retired to deliberate upon a case, has received other evidence; .... ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. McGary v. State · Gaona v. State
“When the trial court is presented with conflicting evidence, appellant must demonstrate an abuse of discretion on appeal. Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App.); Von Byrd v. State, 569 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.Cr.App.); Freeman v. State, 556 S.W.2d 287 , cert. den., 434 U.S. 1088 , 98 S.Ct. 1284 , 55 L.Ed.2d 794 . The test to be applied is whether outside influences affecting the community climate of opinion as to a defendant are inherently suspect. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 ; McManus [v. State, 591 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) ] supra; Adami v. State, 524 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr. App.); Morris v. State, 488 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Cr.App.). Clearly, this standard does not require that jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues and '... scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case.’ Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 ; Adami, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Mills 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.