Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 SW3D 76 - Coleman v. State

Coleman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo))

Relationships

Relies on Clinton v. Jones · King v. State · Kothe v. State · United States of America v. Nelly Marguerite Schmitt Degasso · Wright v. United States

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

  1. “during the absence or disqualification of the attorney for the state.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A district attorney who is not legally disqualified may request that the district court permit him to recuse himself in a particular case for good cause. This procedure allows the district attorney to avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance of impropriety by deciding not to participate in certain cases. Once the trial court approves his voluntary recusal, the district attorney is deemed “disqualified.” The responsibility for making the decision to recuse himself is on the district attorney himself; the trial court cannot require his recusal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “disqualification” when addressing an attorney for the state’s inability to act in a criminal proceeding. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 2.07(a), 2.08. On the other hand, under article 2.07(b-l) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, an attorney for the state who is not disqualified to act may request the trial court to permit him to”
    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.