State v. Moff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

96 state decisions

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

1. “[e]verything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to be proved.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meza v. State · State v. Brown

2. “[I]n his capacity as Chief Appraiser of the Nueces County Appraisal District, [the defendant] used money and credit cards to make numerous purchases of equipment and supplies during the time period alleged in the indictment. Although the indictment correctly tracks the language of the statute, in this type of case, that alone is not sufficient to fulfill the constitutional and statutory requirements of specificity. It is unreasonable to require the defendant to gather evidence and prepare a defense for each of the credit card and cash transactions he made during the seven-year time frame in the indictment. Thus, additional information that is rea sonably necessary for the defense to prepare its case must be provided. This is not to say that the State must lay out its case in the indictment, only that the defendant must be informed of the specific transactions that allegedly violate the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rodgers

3. “Because of the fundamental notions of fairness that require adequate notice of the nature of the charges against the accused in our system of justice, a time ly claim of inadequate notice requires careful consideration.... When the defendant petitions for sufficient notice of the state’s charge by motion to quash adequately setting out the manner in which notice is deficient, the presumption of innocence coupled with his right to notice requires that he be given such notice. Drumm, 560 S.W.2d at 946-47 . Thus, the accused has the right to notice that is specific enough to allow him to investigate the allegations against him and establish a defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanchez v. State