McCraw v. Maris’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably City of Brownsville v. Alvarado (1995), Texas Department of Transportation v. Able (2000)
134 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 8705
Relies on Joske v. Irvine · Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. · Trop v. Dulles · RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc. · Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. v. Brookhollow, Inc.
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No judgment may be reversed ... unless ... the error complained of ... probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The above statements were offered by [Bickley] in order to prove the truth of the matter asserted by [Finney], [Bick-ley] attempts, by such statements, to prove that she performed the conditions precedent contained in the Will because [Finney] stated as much. This is exactly the type of evidence the hearsay rules are intended to protect against because [Finney] is not available to be brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined regarding his statements.... Clearly, the objected-to hearsay testimony was not admissible, the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing its admission and a review of the evidence demonstrates that said incompetent evidence probably caused the rendition of an improper verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Under the McCraws’ theory of the case, it is necessary that they prove (either directly or by circumstantial evidence) that Donna Ann Maris signed and filed the appropriate form with the employing office designating them as beneficiaries. Evidence of the duplicate beneficiary designation form in the handwriting of Donna Ann Maris combined with admitted evidence that it was Donna Ann Maris’ habit to complete handwritten duplicate forms pri- or to typing and filing the original constitutes crucial circumstantial evidence concerning proof that Donna Ann Maris signed and filed the appropriate beneficiary designation form. (Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maris v. McCraw
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.