Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 847 SW2D 568 - Lockhart v. State

Lockhart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Green v. State (1996), Rogers v. State (1993)

2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

410199220002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Scharffe v. Perkins · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co.

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “And, Officer Hulsey would not have been following the car driven by appellant had his suspicions not been aroused by what he saw concerning a suspected drug transaction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Id. Furthermore, where the defendant permits admission of extraneous offense evidence, he waives error regarding such admission. See id. at 572 n. 7. 4 . Appellant also objected to the letter on the grounds that it was an unauthenticated docu ment under Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 902. However, appellant does not dispute the authenticity of the letter on appeal. 5 . Appellant further claims that the letter was merely”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Evidence of extraneous offenses that are indivisibly connected to the charged offense and necessary to the State’s case in proving the charged offense may be admissible as relevant evidence to explain the context of the offense for which the defendant is on trial.”
    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.