Matchett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Wesbrook v. State (2000), Cain v. State (1997)
2 federal appellate · 70 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Furman v. Georgia · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of: (4) the fact that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States of America, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for the offense charged may result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carranza v. State · Cain v. State“[w]here the effects of a particular error are not discernable with reasonable certainty ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Carranza v. State · Cain v. State“"We also disavow any interpretation of Marin . . . which suggest that a Rule 81(b)(2) harm analysis is inappropriate when an absolute legislative mandate like Article 26.13(a) is violated . . . That the nature of some legislative mandates and fundamental rights will resist creation of a record from which to meaningfully assess the effects of their violation, does not justify precluding attempts by the State to establish that under the facts of a particular case, the error was in fact harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . Rather than foreclose the application of harm analysis to whole categories of error on grounds that it is theoretically impossible to conduct a meaningful harm analysis, we believe it wiser to allow for a case by case determination of whether in fact a meaningful harm analysis is possible." (Emphasis original).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lohmuller v. State
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.