Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 819 SW2D 111 - Lackey v. State

Lackey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2012 · most notably Johnson v. Texas (1993), Muniz v. State (1993)

6 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

450199120002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Jurek v. Texas · Lowenfield v. Phelps · Livingston v. State · Keeton 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1)whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately.and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result; (2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and (3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “we are bound by the law to make certain that the death sentence is not "wantonly or freakishly" imposed, and that the purposes of the jury's consideration of the two special issues set forth in Art. 37.071(b) ... are accomplished.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Of course, no one factor is dispositive, and the jury's affirmative answer to special issue two may withstand a sufficiency challenge notwithstanding the lack of evidence relating to one or more of these factors.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.