Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 653 SW2D 775 - Lyles v. State

Lyles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
July 2005
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2005 · most notably Meshell v. State (1987), Lloyd v. State (1984)

37 state decisions

340198319902000decided

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 United States v. Marion · Dillingham v. United States · Barfield v. State · Turner v. State · Ordunez v. Bean

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

  1. “A criminal action commences for purposes of this article when an indictment .. or complaint against the defendant is filed in court, unless prior to the filing the defendant is either detained in custody or released on bail or personal bond to answer for the same offense or any other offense arising out of the same transaction, in which event the criminal action commences when he is arrested.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Hinojosa v. State · Ellcey v. State
  2. “[t]he prosecutor cannot excuse a lack of due diligence on his part [in obtaining the defendant's presence] by pointing the finger at the Sheriff or other law enforcement agency.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Massey v. State · Meshell v. State
  3. “In computing the time by which the state must be ready for trial, the following periods shall be excluded: * * * * 9je * (4) a period of delay resulting from the absence of the defendant because his location is unknown and: (A) he is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution; or (B) the state has been unable to determine his location by due diligence;”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Durham v. State · Johnson 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.