Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 777 SW2D 111 - Schaffer v. State

Schaffer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
3
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Madden v. State (1990), Jones v. State (1992)

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

3101989199020002010decided

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 Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Phelps Dodge Corp. v. AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Committee · Zillender v. State · Davis v. United States · Giblin v. United States

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The rule concerning the type of hearsay in this case is set out in McCormick on Evidence: “If the purpose of the testimony is to use an out-of-court statement to evidence the truth of facts stated therein, the hearsay objection cannot be obviated by eliciting the purport of the statement in indirect form. Thus evidence as to the purport of ‘information received’ by the witness, or testimony of the results of investigations made by other persons, offered as proof of the facts asserted out of court, are properly classed as hearsay.” McCormick on Evidence, Section 249, p. 735 (Cleary Rev., 3rd Ed.1984). Thus, where there is an inescapable conclusion that a piece of evidence is being offered to prove statements made outside the courtroom, a party may not circumvent the hearsay prohibition through artful questioning designed to elicit hearsay indirectly. In short, “statement” as defined in Tex.R.Civ. Evid. 801(a) (now see Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 801(a)) necessarily includes proof of the statement whether the proof is direct or indirect.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.