Heitman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 405 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 409 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Carmouche v. State (2000), Highwarden v. State (1994)
3 federal appellate · 405 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 Illinois v. Gates · Batson v. Kentucky · Gideon v. Wainwright · Mapp v. Ohio · Pointer v. Texas
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 409 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [W]e now expressly conclude that this Court, when analyzing and interpreting Art. I, § 9, Tex. Const., will not be bound by Supreme Court decisions addressing the compa- rabie Fourth Amendment issue, [footnote omitted] In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that state constitutions cannot subtract from the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, but they can provide additional rights to their citizens. The decisions of the Supreme Court represent the minimum protections which a state must afford its citizens. [emphasis in original].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. In Re Benton · Pena v. State“Attorneys, when briefing constitutional questions, should carefully separate federal and state issues into separate grounds and provide substantive analysis or argument on each separate ground. If sufficient distinction between state and federal constitutional grounds is not provided by counsel, this Court may overrule the ground as multifarious.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Wyatt v. State · Turner v. State“Merely following Supreme Court decisions ignores state precedent that existed before the comparable federal right was applied to the states. [[Image here]] ... [Ojur state constitution is a doctrine independent of the federal constitution and its guarantees are not dependent upon those in the federal constitution. The wording of our constitution is not identical to that of the federal constitution, although the rights and provisions are similar.... [[Image here]] ... [A] reason to interpret a state right more broadly than a federal right may be that the state constitutional guarantee is cast in terms that allow a far broader interpretation than the corresponding federal constitutional protection.... ⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ ... [E]ven when the wording of the federal constitution is identical to the state constitution, the state has the power to give more protection to individual rights than provided by federal law. ⅝ ⅜ ⅝ * ⅜ ⅜ ... [I]t is, we believe, significant that our Bill of Rights is the first article in our state constitution_ Such placement indicates the degree of importance of these provisions to the drafters of the constitution and the citizens of this state, as opposed to the federal Bill of Rights which was amended to the end of the federal counterpart.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Johnson 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.