Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 Ga. App. 868 - Dennard v. State

243 Ga. App. 868 - Dennard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
7
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably State v. Sorabella (2006), 285 Ga. App. 545 - Drammeh v. State (2007)

61 state decisions

440200020102020decided

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 Irwin v. State · Vines v. State · Groves v. State · 209 Ga. App. 97 - Dunbar v. State · 157 Ga. App. 451 - Howell 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]n indictment is sufficient to withstand a special demurrer if it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction. 31”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “any person intentionally or willfully to utilize a computer on-line service or Internet service ... to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by such person to be a child to commit any illegal act described in Code Section 16-6-2 [sodomy or aggravated sodomy]; Code Section 16-6-4 [child molestation or aggravated child molestation]; Code Section 16-6-5 [enticing a child for indecent purposes]; or Code Section 16-6-8 [public indecency] or to engage in any conduct that by its nature is an unlawful sexual offense against a child.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Had this case proceeded to trial and verdict under the current indictments, we do not believe that reversal would be necessary due to the failure to name the intended victim, since it is apparent that [Grube] understands the nature of the charges against him based on information gleaned from sources other than the indictment itself.”
    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.