Wheeler v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably De La Paz v. State (2009), Hartsfield v. State (2010)
88 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 Montgomery v. State · Albrecht v. State · Boutwell v. State · Lane v. State · Ibarra 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) how compellingly the evidence serves to make a fact of consequence more or less probable ...; (2) the potential the evidence has to impress the jury in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way; (3) the time the proponent will need to develop the evidence [ (during which, the jury will be distracted from consideration of the indicted offense) ]; and (4) the force of the proponent’s need for this evidence to prove a fact of consequence [ (that is, does the proponent have other probative evidence available to him to help establish this fact, and is this fact related to an issue in dispute?) ].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Disclosure of Facts or Data. The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give the expert’s reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event disclose on direct examination, or be required to disclose on cross-examination, the underlying facts or data.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, the defense presented Ms. Brumley as a species of expert witness, [footnote 5 omitted] one who had conducted a CPS investigation and “did not find any risk of abuse or neglect in the home.” Therefore, the State was entitled to cross-examine Ms. Brumley as it did for two independent but related reasons. First, the opposing party is always entitled to cross-examine an expert witness concerning the facts and data upon which that expert relied in forming her conclusion or opinion, [footnote 6 cites to Tex.R. Evid. 705(a)] Once Ms. Brumley testified to her “determination,” the State was entitled to inquire into the circumstances of that investigation, the mode under which she conducted her inquiry, the people she interviewed, and the materials upon which she relied, [footnote 7 omitted, but will be discussed below] The State was also entitled to question Ms. Brumley about information of which she was aware, but upon which she did not rely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.