Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 969 S.W.2d 1 - Warner v. State

Warner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably in the Interest of N.R.C. and L.A.C. (2002), Holmes v. State (2010)

32 state decisions

220199820002010decided

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 · Tennessee v. Middlebrooks · Fuller v. State · Love v. State · Cowles 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An offer of proof to be accomplished by counsel's concise statement must include a reasonably specific summary of the evidence offered and must state the relevance of the evidence unless the relevance is apparent, so that the court can determine whether the evidence is relevant and admissible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which ... excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and ... the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which ... excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and [[Image here]] (2) Offer of proof ... the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer, or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.