Lackey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Cooks v. State (1992), Juarez v. State (1988)
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
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 Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Mendenhall
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This is a two pronged privilege. A person, though no longer married, may not testify as to confidential communications made by his spouse during the marriage. The second part of the privilege is that neither a husband nor a wife may be a witness against his spouse during the existence of the marriage whether or not the subject of the testimony is a confidential communication. This absolute disqualification dissolves upon dissolution of the marriage but the ban on testifying about communications remains.” Lackey v. State, 638 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zimmerman v. State“A present intention to be married in the future is not enough. The parties must intend to be husband and wife from the moment of the agreement onward.... [I]t is not sufficient to agree on present cohabitation and future marriage (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reece v. State“He had not testified that his beliefs about capital punishment were so strong that he would disregard the evidence and answer the questions required ... so that the death penalty could not be assessed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Burks v. Estelle
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.