Teague v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2014
21 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 Adams v. Texas · Scharffe v. Perkins · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co. · Alexander v. United States
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court abuses its discretion in overruling a challenge for cause to a veniremember who cannot follow the law. See Trevino v. State, 815 S.W.2d 592, 614 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), rev'd on other grounds, [— U.S. -] 112 S.Ct. 1547 [ 118 L.Ed.2d 193 ] (1992). The law requires a juror at least to consider youth as a mitigating factor in answering the special issues. See id. Here, however, [the venire-member] was not informed the law required him to consider youth or age in mitigation of punishment. Therefore, appellant cannot demonstrate [the veniremember] had a bias against this phase of the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robertson v. State“A trial court abuses its discretion in overruling a challenge for cause to a venireper-son who cannot follow the law. [citation omitted] The law requires a juror at least to consider youth as a mitigating factor in answering the special issues, [citation omitted] Here, however, [the venireperson] was not informed the law required him to consider youth or age in mitigation of punishment. Therefore, appellant cannot demonstrate [the venireperson] had a bias against this phase of the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers v. State“offered to prove the fact of an assertion, a nonhearsay purpose, and not to prove the truthfulness of the asserted fact, a hearsay purpose”), overruled on other grounds by Robertson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 701 , 712-13 n. 13 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). 13 . For example, the State also argues in its brief that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Pollard 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.