Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 939 SW2D 173 - Hernandez v. State

Hernandez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Cathey v. State (1999), Brown v. State (2008)

63 state decisions

370199720002010decided

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 Liteky v. United States · Cablevision Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America, Inc. · Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena · Benson v. Empire State Bank · Tennessee v. Middlebrooks

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

  1. “The accomplice witness rule is satisfied if there is some non-accomplice evidence which tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offense alleged in the indictment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “All the law requires is that there be some non-accomplice evidence which tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offense. While individually these circumstances might not be sufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony, taken together, rational jurors could conclude that this evidence sufficiently tended to connect appellant to the offense. (Emphasis in original)”
    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.