Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 952 SW2D 894 - Lee v. State

Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2018

11 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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 265th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Tallman v. Northwest Acute Care Corp. · United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez · Baker v. Minerex Erdoel, Inc. · Saxton 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) it has no relationship to the crime; (2) it relates to conduct that is not in itself criminal; and (3) it forbids or requires conduct that is not reasonably related to the future criminality of the defendant or does not serve the statutory ends of probation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “To a greater or lesser degree, it is always true of probationers (as we have said it to be true of parolees) that they do not enjoy “the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only ... conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special [probation] restrictions.” These restrictions are meant to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large.... Supervision, then, is a “special need” of the State permitting a degree of impingement upon privacy that would not be constitutional if applied to the public at large. That permissible degree is not unlimited, however....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement.”
    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.