Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 744 SW2D 235 - Coffey v. State

Coffey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2011

4 state decisions

201987199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 209th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Santoni v. United States · Ullmann v. United States · United States v. Beechum · Carlsen 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Appellant’s fourth point of error asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument regarding appellant’s demeanor. An objection raised on appeal will not be considered if it varies from the objection made at trial. Euziere v. State, 648 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Appellant’s objection at trial was that the argument was a comment on appellant’s failure to testify. His ground of error on appeal is that the argument went outside of the record. The Court of Criminal Appeals found this same mismatching of objection to be insufficient to preserve error in Bouchillon v. State, 540 S.W.2d 319, 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Appellant has failed to preserve error for review. Appellant’s fourth point of error is overruled.”
    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.