Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 SW2D 591 - Lundy v. State

Lundy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2009
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2009

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

601974198019902000decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · King v. State · Harris v. State · Rockett v. State · Locke 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “context of the undisputed facts of the case ... harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “overly zealous in support of this incompetent line of proof,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We note that the trial judge permitted cross-examination upon the same subject matter, but simply ruled out predicating the cross-examination questions upon the prior questions and answers. From the tender of proof in the record we do not believe that defendant was prejudiced by what we deem to have been too restrictive a ruling. Defense counsel was under no positive duty to affirmatively identify his role in the upcoming case before questioning a witness. He apparently made no misrepresentation, and was apparently seeking the truth. State's counsel was unduly critical of defense counsel in indicating before the jury that State's counsel should have been present at the interview, etc., but we hold this error to be harmless in the context of this case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.