State v. Lowry’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Walker v. Packer (1992), Huie v. DeShazo (1996)
42 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin))
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Jampole v. Touchy · Loftin v. Martin · Peeples v. Honorable Fourth Supreme Judicial District · Weisel Enterprises, Inc. v. Curry
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party should provide evidence to the trial court in the form of affidavits or testimony to establish the claimed privilege; albeit in some limited circumstances the documents themselves may, standing alone, constitute sufficient proof.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ll of the information sought to be discovered was gathered by the State during the investigation that ied to the filing of this antitrust enforcement action. The State has refused to provide materials' requested by the insurers that could lead to evidence supporting their defense. It is difficult for the insurers to make a more particularized showing of need for these documents, the contents of which are unknown to them.”). 98 . See Tex Occ. Code § 160.008(c) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except as otherwise provided in this section, while in the possession of the custodian, no documentary material, answers to interrogatories, or transcripts of oral testimony, or copies thereof, so produced shall be available for examination, without the consent of the person who produced such material, answers, or transcripts, and, in the case of any product of discovery produced pursuant to an express demand for such material, of the person from whom the discovery was obtained, by any individual other than a duly authorized official, employee, or agent of the Department of Justice. Nothing in this section is intended to prevent disclosure to either body of the Congress or to any authorized committee or subcommittee thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.