David Andrew Schmidt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 251st Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Marshall v. Doe · Theus v. State · Wright v. State · United States v. Fountain
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“allowing him to impeach Detective Fitzgerald and that had he been allowed to impeach him earlier, he would have never testified in his own defense. Among its arguments, the State argues that the statements were not inconsistent and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not initially allowing Coleman to impeach Fitzgerald. On this issue, we agree with the State that the statements were not inconsistent. As a reviewing court, we accord the trial court”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman 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.