Pannell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Ward v. State (1987), State Ex Rel. Eidson v. Edwards (1990)
1 federal appellate · 27 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 Castaneda v. Partida · Norris v. State of Alabama · Rose v. Mitchell · Johnson v. United States · Willingham v. Morgan
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any criminal provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on trial in any criminal case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Henrich v. State · Keen v. State“"(A) During the course of his representation of a client a lawyer shall not: "(1) Communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized by law to do so." (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Henrich v. State · Henrich v. State“[T]he disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility are not laws of the State of Texas as were contemplated by Article 38.23, supra. Thus, violation of one of these disciplinary rules in obtaining evidence for a criminal proceeding will not bar introduction of that evidence at trial.... We agree with our brothers in the federal system that such ethical violations are to be dealt with by means of the administrative mechanisms specially established for dealing with such unethical conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holt 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.