Nethery v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 135 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Matson v. State (1991), Dewberry v. State (1999)
2 federal appellate · 135 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Barefoot v. Estelle · Estelle v. Smith
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The State's interest is in fair and impartial jurors, in accord with our legal system's basic tenet to insure that every defendant is accorded a fair and impartial trial. The State seeks, or should seek, to uphold the integrity of the jury system. Therefore the State is permitted to challenge a juror who cannot be fair and impartial because he will not consider the full range of punishment. Whether the State later urges the jury to assess the minimum or the maximum is of no moment." 692 S.W.2d at 691”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Guerra v. State · Caldwell v. State““Furthermore, as the State points out, the rule set forth in Henley, supra [ 387 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.Crim.App.1965) (opinion on rehearing) ], is applied when the State impeaches their own witness with a prior statement. A limiting instruction explaining to the jury that the prior statement is not evidence protects a defendant from having the jury consider the State’s impeachment of their own witness as evidence against the defendant. The same situation is not presented when a defendant impeaches the State’s witness. If a court refuses a defendant's request for an instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of impeaching testimony brought out by a defendant of a State’s witness, the rationale of Henley does not ap-ply_” (Emphasis in opinion.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lawrence v. State“Given the facts of the case, which reflect a senseless killing by [defendant], and given defense counsel’s obvious insinuation in his argument that since no motive was shown perhaps appellant did not shoot the officer, the State’s response to this invited argument was not error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lopez
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.