May v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2019
17 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 Grayned v. City of Rockford · Kolender v. Lawson · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · Kramer v. Price
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he: ... (7)(A) on more than one occasion engages in conduct directed specifically toward the other person, including following that person, that is reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass that person; (B) on at least one of those occasions by acts or words threatens to inflict bodily injury on that person or to commit an offense against that person, a member of that person’s family, or that person’s property; and (C) on at least one of those occasions engages in the conduct after the person toward whom the conduct is specifically directed has reported to a law enforcement agency the conduct described by this subdivision. [[Image here]] (e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(7) of this section that the actor was engaged in conduct that consisted of activity in support of constitutionally or statutorily protected rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Long v. State · DeWillis v. State“The Texas courts have made no attempt to construe the terms 'annoy' and 'alarm' in a manner which lessens their inherent vagueness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he: ****** (2) threatens, by telephone or in writing, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict serious bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of his family, or his property; (3) conveys, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the report, a false report, which is known by the conveyor to be false, that another person has suffered death or serious bodily injury; (4) causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bader 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.