Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 882 S.W.2d 844 - Moore v. State

Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Dowthitt v. State (1996), Keeter v. State (2002)

4 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

270199420002010decided

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 Yagow v. United States · Evans v. Jeff D. · Green v. Missouri · Smith v. Florida · Moody 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.

  1. “At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order on its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a defendant which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause, or (4) the victim, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim’s testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the newly discovered evidence was unknown to the movant at the time of trial; (2) the movant’s failure to discover the evidence was not due to his want of diligence; (3) the evidence is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is probably true and would probably bring about a different result in another trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “• the evidence was unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; • the failure to discover the evidence was not due to the defendant’s want of diligence; • the evidence is admissible, and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral or impeaching; and • the evidence is probably true and will probably bring about a different result on another trial.”
    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.