Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 SW3D 294 - Hall v. State

Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco))

Relationships

Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Brinegar v. United States · Ornelas v. United States · Adams v. Williams · Alabama v. White

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

  1. “The court of appeals erred to hold that a Rule 702 Kelly [v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) ] gatek-eeping hearing is required to show the reliability of LIDAR technology to measure speed at a hearing on a motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the court of appeals correctly held that the trial judge abused his discretion when denying Hall's suppression motion because there was no evidence that LIDAR technology, as used in this case, supplied probable cause for the stop.”). See also id. at 300-01 (Price, J., concurring) (setting out the”
    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.