Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 677 SW2D 42 - Stephen v. State

Stephen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Hernandez v. State (1991), Cook v. State (1993)

1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

1201984199020002010decided

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 Illinois v. Lafayette · Alejandro v. State · Daniels v. State · Benavides v. State · Evers 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In the instant case there was no forced entry. Officer Caraway removed the car keys from the ignition and proceeded to inventory the contents of the trunk. As a means of protection against possible future claims of the theft of property by the police from the trunk, the officers properly conducted an inventory of the trunk of the car. Williams v. State, 621 S.W.2d 613, 615 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Clearly, in the instant case, if appellant's companion had had a valid driver's license and it was appellant's desire to leave his car with his companion, the officers should have respected his wishes. See Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “... the prosecutor never referred to the parole laws and we cannot say from the record that he crossed the line into the forbidden area of jury argument on parole laws. We find that his argument was a proper summation of evidence and a plea for law enforcement.”
    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.