Lake v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth))
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Penson v. Ohio · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I am not inclined to straightjacket our construction of [the harmless error rule] as the plurality continues to do today, in derogation of this Court's authority to, for example, declare certain state constitutional violations to be immune to harm analysis[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Niles v. State“There is no set formula for conducting a harm analysis that necessarily applies across the board, to every case and every type of constitutional error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris v. State“If, after such analysis, the harm of the error simply cannot be assessed, then 'the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris 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.