Lawrence v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably Rose v. State (1988), Lawton v. State (1996)
49 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York · Almanza v. State · Cumbie 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[L]ook to the whole record bearing upon the subject. What was the nature of the testimony supporting the verdict? Was it cogent and overwhelming? What was the character of the testimony presenting the phase or theory of the case omitted to be noticed in the charge, and upon which omission error is assigned? Was it all reasonable? Did it present a theory which a reasonable mind could entertain, or was it supported by such testimony as was remotely calculated to destroy the State’s case when considered in connection with the other testimony in the case, as well as the charge as a whole? Was the phase of the case simply an addition to the case as made by the State and consistent therewith, or was it in direct conflict with the State’s theory?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he subtle deletion of the State’s burden of proof on the absence of sudden passion in the murder application paragraph cannot realistically be construed to inure to the defendant’s egregious harm. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the unobjected-to jury charge error was so ‘egregious and created such harm that [appellant] has not had a fair and impartial trial.’ Lawrence v. State, 700 S.W.2d at 213 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State · Goff v. State““[although ... there was sufficient evidence to raise the issue of voluntary manslaughter, there was more than sufficient evidence to convict appellant of murder. Appellant herself refuted any claim of voluntary manslaughter. Indeed, during closing argument, appel lant’s attorney argued that the facts presented a classic case of self-defense.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State · Ruiz 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.